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

Options

peter

Co-owner of Wildfact

2,609 Replies

34 Topics

Joined: Mar 2014

Reputation: 52

#1,293

09-29-2017, 06:49 AM

Title - 'ZUR STELLUNG DES TIGERS (Panthera tigris) DER INSEL BALI'

Author - Hemmer (H)

Source - Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 34 (pp. 216-223), 1969

Abstract - " ... Two hirtherto unpublished skulls of the balinese tiger are studied in comparison with the holotype of Panthera tigris balica (Schwartz 1912) and a number of skulls and skins of Javanese and Sumatran tigers. Own subspecific rank cannot be maintained for the Balinese tiger which has to be classified with the Javanese Panthera tigris sondaica. As fossil tigers indicate, this subspecies has evolved within its present geographic range from the unspecialized middle Pleistocene tigers of eastern and southeastern Asia ... " (pp. 222).

Status of the Bali tiger in the late sixties of the previous century - Although the Bali tiger had been described by Schwartz (1912), Pocock (1929, 1939) and Sody (1932, 1949), serious doubts about the status of this subspecies remained until the early seventies of the last century. Hemmer (pp. 216) thought it largely was a result of a lack of clear information: apart from the holotype (skull and skin of a female) and a few skins (Kloss in Jacobson 1920, Sody 1932 and 1949), only one other skull had been described later (Sody, 1949).

When information is lacking, problems never are far away. In the late sixties of the previous century, the situation changed to a degree when two skulls from tigresses shot in Bali were 'discovered' in the Museum für Naturkunde in Stuttgart (Germany). In order to get to an assessment, Hemmer, apart from the two new Bali skulls, studied the holotype (in the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt am Main, Germany), 19 skulls from Java, 39 skulls from Sumatra and 15 skins (pp. 216).

About the 2 Bali skulls - The owners of the skulls (tigresses) were shot by A. Krockenberger on August 4, 1924 and September 16, 1926. One female was shot near Medevi (west of Batukau), whereas the other was shot near Poeloekan (central Bali).

Profile, sagittal crest, nasals and occiput - Although a bit longer than the skull in the Senckenberg Museum (holotype), both skulls are short (266 mm. in greatest total length). As a result of their size, they are more vaulted than (most) skulls from Java and Sumatra. Sagittal crest hardly developed. Nasals and occiput like in most Java tigers (Panthera tigris sondaica).

Size - Within the range of both Panthera tigris sumatrae and Panthera tigris sondaica.

Skin - Similar to Panthera tigris sumatrae and Panthera tigris sondaica.

Conclusion - As the skulls and skins of Bali tigers were not different from those of Java tigers, Hemmer concluded that Bali tigers were not a subspecies, but a (sub)population of Java tigers: " ... bei den Tigers der Insel Bali handelte es sich um eine zur Kleinwuchsigkeit neigende Population dieser Unterart (Java tigers), aus welcher die kleinsten rezenten Tiger stammen ... " (pp. 219).

Panthera tigris palaeosinensis - This tiger was common in northeastern Asia, including Japan (Hemmer, 1967), just before the start of the Pleistocene. In the early stages of the Pleistocene, it disappeared. A few years ago, bones of cave lions and Panthera tigris palaeosinensis were found in a cave in southeastern Russia (Baryshnikov). Although both cats co-existed, it's not likely they competed. Cave lions were large animals and lived in groups, whereas Panthera tigris palaeosinensis, a solitary cat, compared to Bali tigers. The skull Hemmer saw (female), was a bit shorter than the skull of an average Bali tigress.

Balica and palaeosinensis - The skull of Panthera tigris palaeosinensis (holotype) wasn't as vaulted as in Panthera tigris balica and the sagittal crest was a bit lower, suggesting that palaeosinensis could have been even smaller than the Bali tiger. The other distinctive features (wider occiput, wider nasals and a relatively short M1) are typical for most mainland tigers today. More remarkable is the somewhat convex mandibula of palaeosinensis, but Hemmer thought that skulls of female Bali tigers almost compared in this respect. I also noticed that the maxillary bone was a bit shorter than in both Bali skulls.

Size of Bali tigers - In greatest total length, skulls of Bali tigresses more or less compare to skulls of tigresses from Sumatra and Java. They are a bit shorter, but the shortest I saw were from Sumatra. Mazak (1983), who measured a number of skins, thought that male Bali tigers were a bit smaller than males from Sumatra and Java, but photographs not known in his day suggest that he could have been wrong. The skull of a large male shot by a hunter from Hungary was about as long as a skull of an average male Sumatran tiger (312 mm. in greatest total length).

Here's a few pictures Hemmer, apart from the second, didn't see:

a - 1916, male (first posted by Guate):

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - 1937, male (in: Mazak, 1983):

*This image is copyright of its original author

c - Date unknown, adult female (?):

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - Ringling Bros, first posted by Roflcopters. He thought it could have been a Bali tiger. I agree, but I never read anything about captive Bali tigers: