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

[peter]

V. MAZAK - 'DER TIGER' (third edition, 1983) - STANDING HEIGHT OF CAPTIVE TIGERS

a - Introduction

Many years ago, I found a copy of Mazak's great book 'Der Tiger' in a small bookshop somewhere in Amsterdam. Everything you want to know about tigers is there. I read it many times and still consider it a classic. My advice is to buy it when you can.

One of the things that stood out was the information about wild Amur tigers. Back then, in the early seventies of the last century, Amur tigers were considered an enigma. There were a lot of rumours, but nobody was able to provide good information. Mazak opened a door that had been closed for a very long time, that is. The reason was that Mazak, able in Russian, had contacted a number of Russian biologists and hunters. 

Apart from Amur tigers, something else stood out. Mazak's paragraph on the size of tigers ('Die Größe der Tiger') is long (pp. 178-196) and has a lot of information. Quite a bit of it was unique back then. The reason was that he had done a lot of work himself. He not only had measured a lot of skulls, but he had also measured and weighed a number of captive Amur tigers. Apart from that, he collected information about the actual standing height of captive tigers in European zoos.  

This post is about the standing height of captive tigers in European zoos. Poster 'Betty' had a question about the way the height was measured. I think it's best to let Mazak answer that one himself.            

b - On the method used to measure the standing height of captive tigers

Here's a scan of page 179 of the third edition of Mazak's book. It is about the paragraph in red. Mazak said he had collected information about the actual standing height of captive tigers in a number of European zoos. My guess is that most of the information was collected in the sixties and early seventies of the last century.

Here's a summary of the paragraph (in German). 

A scale was placed in front of the bars. When the tiger was standing directly in front of the scale, the measurement was recorded. Mazak said that every tiger was measured in the same position and in the same way. Applying the method took a bit of time, but it produced results.

I tested this method in the facility I visited in the nineties of the last century. I placed a steel tape in front of the cage and watched the tiger for some time. Every time he was right in front of the scale and not moving, a measurement was recorded. In order to prevent errors, I used a margin of 2 cm. Example: when I saw the tiger was about 90 cm. when standing right in front of the scale, I recorded a score of 89-91 cm.  

When I had 10 scores, I left the room. A keeper instructed by someone else was then asked to repeat the experiment. Next day, there was a follow-up. We only compared the scores when the experiment was finished. 

As for the conclusion. If different people use this method to measure the actual standing height of one and the same tiger in the same cage, the averages, based on at least 10 scores, compare. With 'compare', I mean that the difference between the averages never exceeded 1 inch (2,54 cm.). The average difference was about 1 cm. only. This to say that the method described by Mazak produced reliable results every time it was used.  

Based on what I read, I concluded that Mazak himself participated every now and then:        

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

c - Standing height of captive tigers in European zoos 

The table below was posted before. In order to get to more clarity, I decided to add a few lines. Horizontal red lines were used to distinguish between the 5 subspecies. Horizontal blue lines were used to distinguish between males and females. All tigers were measured in the sixties and early seventies of the last century:    

*This image is copyright of its original author

As to the averages found. In males, the difference between altaica (101,86 cm.), tigris (93,30 cm.), corbetti (88,00 cm.), amoyensis (84,00 cm.) and sumatrae (77,17 cm.) is quite outspoken. In females, the differences between altaica (85,00 cm.), tigris (82,00 cm.), corbetti (79,25 cm.), amoyensis (77,50 cm.) and sumatrae (67,00 cm.) are more limited. 

Mazak measured 7 adult male Amur tigers. On page 180 of his book, he added the standing height of a very large male Amur tiger in the Duisburg Zoo. This giant, not in the table, was 110,00 cm. at the shoulder. If we add the 3 males I measured in a facility, the average of 11 captive male Amur tigers is 102,41 cm. 

Some time ago, I also posted information about the actual standing height of what must have been Indochinese tigers (Panthera tigris corbetti) and lions from northern Africa in the Paris Zoo ('Jardin des Plantes'). The average of the Indochinese tigers more or less compared to the averages of P. tigris corbetti in Mazak's table. Male lions from northern Africa were a bit taller (just over 3 feet). They more or less compared to captive male Indian tigers. 
 
The differences between males and females are most outspoken in altaica (17,41 cm. or 20,48%) and sumatrae (10,17 cm. or 15,18%). In Indian tigers (11,30 cm. or 13,78%), Indochinese tigers (8,75 cm. or 11,04%) and Chinese tigers (6,50 cm. or 8,39%), the difference was less outspoken.

I might have seen male Amur tiger 'Nicolajev' (see the table) in the Rotterdam Zoo ('Blijdorp'). Compared to their neighbours (African lions), the Amur tigers I saw were very old, very tall and very long, but thin as a rail. The keeper told me he had the skin of another captive male Amur tiger at home. 

As to the very large Duisburg Zoo Amur tiger. He was born in 1965 in the Rotterdam Zoo. Later, he was transported to Duisburg. In 1970, at age 5,5, he was 110,00 cm. at the shoulder (actual standing height) and 320 cm. in total length (measured in a straight line). His weight was estimated at 280-300 kg. (618-662 pounds). His mother was caught in the Ussuri region. The parents of his father were caught in the same region.

In the early eighties of the last century, I saw a male Amur tiger in the zoo of what was then West-Berlin. Although taller than the Duisburg Zoo tiger, he wasn't as robust. The parents of this tiger were caught near the Ussuri river. 

Amur tigresses average 85 cm. at the shoulder, but I saw a few definitely exceeding 3 feet in different circuses. One of them, although fit in all respects, was very close to 440 pounds. Her parents were caught near the Ussuri as well. The trainer told me she wasn't interested in mating. The only male she liked was a very old male tiger caught in the late sixties in northeastern China (Manchuria). The trainer said it was the largest cat he had ever seen. The photograph showed a tiger of prehistoric size, far exceeding the others I had seen. I did my best, but the photograph wasn't for sale. The tiger had saved his life on two occasions. The trainer confirmed what I had seen in facilities and zoos: tigers and brown bears don't mix. 

Over the years, I saw a lot of captive big cats. An adult male standing 3 feet at the shoulder is impressive. A male of 3.3 is very large and a male of 3.6 is exceptional. I saw 2 male Amur tigers exceeding 3.8. Based on what I saw, I'd say that captive male Amur tigers are the tallest big cats. Wild Namibian lions, however, seem to compare. I'm very interested in the way they were measured. Reply