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

[peter]

WARSAW

It didn't take you long to respond to the questions in post 1,447, but you didn't deliver. I'll try again.

a - The issue

In the third part of his book 'Der Tiger' (third edition, 1983), in 3.2 ('Der Größe der Tiger', pp. 178-196), V. Mazak says there's no question that the tiger is the largest cat. The question is how large: " ... Welche Größe können Tiger nun tatsächlich erreichen? ... " (pp. 178). In spite of the large number of measurements and weights in books, it wasn't easy to get to an answer: 

" ... Es ist möglich, zahlreiche Angaben über Gewicht und Größe aus der Literatur zu erhalten, die sich mit der Jagd des Tigers sowohl im nordlichen wie südlichen teil seines Verbreitungsgebietes beschäftigt. Leider weiß man nie ob diese Daten als authentisch betrachtet werden können oder nicht. Das muß festgestellt werden, und das gleiche trifft auch für Rowlands Ward's berühmte 'Records of Big Game' ... zu, besonders für die älteren der zusammengetragenen Daten des in anderer Hinsichts so nützlichen Werkes. Die 'Jagd' nach des besten und größten Trophäe hat die Glaubwürdigkeit vieler Sportjäger mit Sicherheit beträchtlich beeinflußt.

Des weiteren haben sie die getötenen Großkatzen auf unterschiedlichen Weise vermessen. Die aus der Literatur, die sich mit der Sportjagd beschäftigt, am besten bekannten zwei Methoden sind entweder die Länge des Tieres 'over curves' zu nehmen, d.h. allen Körperkrümmungen des ausgestreckt am Boden liegenden Tieres 'over curves' zu folgen, oder 'between pegs', d.h. die gerade Entfernung von der Nasen- bis zur Schwanzspitze des frei am Boden liegenden toten Tieres.

Der erstere Methode ergibt naturgemäß höhere Werte, wogegen die letztere tatsächlich mit der Gesamtlänge eines Tieres identisch ist, wie sie gewöhnlich von einem Zoölogen verstanden wird. Vom zoologischen Standpunkt aus sind schließlich die Zentimeter, die eine Trophäe zur Rekordtrophäe machen, nicht so wichtig. Es ist uns eher daran gelegen, daß wir uns eine Gesamtvorstellung über die Durchschnittsgröße machen, die eine Art in ihren Unterarten errecht.

In diesem Buch werden Daten über die Tigergröße weder aus dem reinen Sportjägerschrifttum noch aus den 'Records of Big Game zitiert ... " (pp. 178).

To keep it short. Mazak says the 'hunt' for trophees has effected the credibility of many hunters. This means it is difficult to get to an opinion on records of hunters. In order to get to an assessment, Mazak distinguishes between measurements taken 'over curves' and measurements taken 'between pegs'. As zoologists measure big cats 'between pegs', Mazak decided to use measurements taken in this way only. 

b - On W.J. Jankowski and the brown bear

After discussing the standing height of tigers in European zoos, Mazak turns to the size of Amur tigers. He says he doubts they can reach the dimensions described by Baikov and Barclay and regrets he used the data they published.

After discussing the length of two males from the Prague Zoo, he turns to W.J. Jankowski:

" ... Uber eine große persönliche Erfahrung mit dem Ussuritiger, die ich bedeutend höher einschätze als die der verstorbenen Bajkov, verfügt W.J. Jankowski, ein Sohn des bekannten Naturforschers J.M. Jankowski, der mir viele bedeutende Daten über die nördliche Tiger mitteilte.

In einem seiner Briefe (datiert vom 8. Mai 1970) schreibt W.J. Jankowski, daß das größte Tigermännchen, welches jemals von ihm, seinen Brüdern oder seinem Vater geschossen wurde, ein riesiges Männchen war, das am 9. Juli 1943 von ihm, seinen Brüdern und einem koreanischen Berufsjäger namens Sin-En-Tschzhin im Becken des Oberlaufes der Sungari-Flusses in Heilongjiang (Nordostchina) erlegt wurde. Die Gesamtlänge des Tieren, gemessen 'über curves', betrug 11 engl. ft. 6 ins., d.h. 350,7 cm. Somit würde der Tiger etwa eine Länge von 330-335 cm. 'between pegs' gehabt haben und Jankowski betonte mehrere Male in seinen Briefen, das dies ein außergewöhnlich größes Tier war, ein wahrhafter Gigant unter den Ussuritigern ... (pp. 185-186).

Later, Mazak again referred to W.J. Jankowski and the giant tiger he, his brothers and the Korean professional hunter shot in 1943:

" ... Was den sehr großen Tiger betrifft, den W.J. Jankowski und sein Team 1943 im becken des Oberlaufes des Sungari schossen, so ist das genaue Gewicht nicht bekann. Jankowski schätzte es aber glaubwärdig mit etwa 300 kg. Er schreibt (in litt. 8.5.1970): " ... Der Tiger ... was so groß, das einer von uns Hilfe holen mußte, damit wir das Tier aus dem Wald schaffen konnten. Als die Helfer kamen, waren wir insgesamt neun strake Männer. Wir schnitten den Körper des toten Tigers in Stücke und jeder von uns trug eine Ladung von etwa 30-40 kg., so das ich nicht zögere zu sagen, daß das Gewicht des Tigers sicher nicht weniger als etwa 300 kg. betrug ... " (pp. 189).

Mazak concluded the information on the giant tiger with a remark about the bear he had killed and eaten:

" ... Um die Angaben über diesen riesigen Tiger zu vervollständigen, sollte ich vielleicht erwähnen, daß Jankowski (l.c.) hinzufügt, daß der Tiger einige Tagen vor dem Abschuß ein sehr großes Braunbär-Männchen getötet und gefressen hatte, von dem nur eine Pfote und der Kopf übrigblieben, die von Jankowski gefunden worden ... " (pp. 189).

In order to get it straight: Mazak said that Jankowski, in his letter, added that the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head remained, which were found by Jankowski. From what he wrote, it's clear he respects W.J. Jankowski a lot. 

c - On your attempt to discredit a renowned zoologist 

You are a member of Carnivora Forum. In that forum, you said you found a book published by the same man who corresponded with V. Mazak: W.J. Jankowski. In your post on Carnivora Forum a few days ago, you wrote the book was published in 1993.

In the book, W.J. Jankowski wrote about the very large tiger shot by him, his brothers and the Korean hunter in 1943. According to W.J. Jankowski, the skin of the tiger, and not the tiger, measured 11.6. The tiger had eaten a bear, but he didn't say if the tiger had fought and killed the bear. 

When a poster responded to your post about the book of W.J. Jankowski, you said Jankowski is the primary source. V. Mazak's book is a secondary source. This means that W.J. Jankowski's remarks on the tiger are final. This means you, indirectly, said that V. Mazak lied regarding the length of the tiger and the bear eaten by the tiger.

d - On your response to my suggestions to explain the difference of opinion on the length of the tiger and the brown bear eaten by the tiger

When I was informed about your post on Jankowski's book, I reread your posts at Carnivora. When other posters asked me about the difference of opinion between Jankowski and Mazak on the length of the tiger and the bear, I said it was difficult to understand. Some days ago, in another post on V. Mazak, knowing you would read it and respond, I offered four explanations. 

As expected, you quickly responded. The problem is you, again, didn't respond in the most adequate way. When you accuse someone, you need to deliver proof. This means you first need to scan the title page of Jankowski's book and the other pages that matter first. When you post the scans, you add a translation. In this way, you offer those interested the opportunity to get to an opinion.   

You didn't post the scans, but instead posted a lengthy part of a very long post of WaveRiders. In the quote, he disqualified this forum in general and one of the co-owners in particular. After a number of pages loaded with fury, you added he was right. After finishing the discrediting part, you said that the four explanations I offered on the difference of opinion between Mazak and Jankowski were based on a lack of information, twists and assumptions.

e - On the answers you provided

In the third edition of his book 'Der Tiger', V. Mazak said the tiger shot in 1943 was 11.6 'over curves'. He also said that the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear a few days before he was shot by Jankowski's team (see -b-). W.J. Jankowski, however, said that the skin of the tiger, an not the tiger, was 11.6. He also said the tiger had eaten a bear. He didn't say the tiger had killed the bear. 

How explain? You said Jankowski's book is the primary source, meaning Mazak lied. As simple as that. I think the difference of opinion could have been a result of something else. Here's a summary of your answer. 

e1 - I said W.J. Jankowski was a young man when the tiger was shot. His book was published many years after the event, when he was an old man. You said W.J. Jankowski was born in 1911. This means he was 32 when the tiger was shot in 1943 and 82 when his book was published. You went for a lack of accuracy in my proposal in order to discredit me, but 32 is young, whereas 82 is old. Your attempt to discredit me backfired, that is. 

e2 - You said Jankowski's book is the primary source. True. But Mazak referred to Jankowski's letters all the time. Jankowski also sent him a photograph. The photograph was taken by Jankowski himself, not someone else. This proves they corresponded. It is important to add that Mazak, regarding the length, the weight and the bear, referred to Jankowski's letter of 8.5.1970.   

Mazak, a zoologist who had published before, knew the rules of the game. If you quote someone, you have to be accurate. He also knew that W.J. Jankowski would get a lot of attention. More than enough reason for him to ask for permission to quote from his letters and to publish the photograph, one would think. If Jankowski would have disagreed, he would have reacted.                
 
e3 - Jankowski book is the primary source, provided it's clear, accurate and detailed on the length of the tiger and the bear he ate. Let's address the length first. Jankowski said the skin of the tiger, and not the tiger, was measured. But in his letter to Mazak of 8.5.1970, he wrote that the tiger was cut in pieces in order to get it out of the forest. You can't cut a tiger to pieces and than measure it. He contradicted himself, that is.

As for the bear. Jankowski did say the tiger had eaten a bear, but didn't say anything about a struggle. Mazak, however, quoted from Jankowski's letter of 8.5.1970. In that letter, Jankowski wrote the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head remained. Did Jankowski decide to skip the details on the tiger and the bear in the book because the focus was on something else, or did he again contradict himself?  

e4 - The only way to get to an answer is to contact the man who got Mazak's files, C.P. Groves. Based on what I read and heard from a man who considered him an able zoologist and a friend (Dr. P. van Bree), I have no questions. He could have added the letter of Jankowski of 8.5.1970 in the Appendix, but decided against it. Maybe Jankowski didn't want the letter published. 

As to the 'very large bear' killed by the tiger. I know there is no solid evidence of male brown bears killed by tigers, but that doesn't mean it never happens. In a recent article (Kerley and Miquelle were involved), it was stated that biologists could have been wrong on tigers and bears in Russia. Bears are no doubt dangerous, but tigers apparently do not hesitate to attack bears and not all of them are small. If a tiger of exceptional size would engage a bear of similar size, nothing can be excluded.

All this to say that I do not intend to contact a man who most probably wants to stay clear of forums, posters and problems. If you have a different opinion, contact Groves.  

f - To conclude

There are not that many people interested in animals walking the edge, like large predators. Some of those interested joined forums in which they feature. Although most of them share a common interest, they seldom cooperate. Most energy is invested in animosity, fueds and all the rest of it. 

One reason is preference, but not being able to deal with criticism is as important, if not more so. It's a fact that humans and mistakes are good friends. If a mistake is made, it has to be corrected. Posters addressed by others often seem unable to deal with criticism. 

Example. All zoologists and biologists I know measure big cats in a straight line and not 'over curves'. That's why I thought that wild tigers were measured in a straight line as well. Until you proved me wrong. I was as surprised as the biologists I informed, but accepted that reality is different from textbook. You than posted about a well-known biologist who turned the world upside down on straight line and curve measurements. You supported him. I responded and the result was animosity. For what reason, Warsaw? He was wrong. Period.    
  
A few years ago, I was in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde in Stuttgart to measure skulls. Some of the skulls had labels with information about the size of the owner. As I didn't know in what way they had been measured, I asked Dr. Mörike about the method that had been used. She was a bit irritated, as biologists measure big cats in a straight line as a rule. When I told her that most biologists measure wild big cats 'over curves' today, she didn't believe me. The following day, after she had read a number of articles, she did. But she was flabberghasted. 

Returning to Mazak and Jankowski. They seem to disagree on the length of the tiger and the bear. Mazak quoted Jankowski every time he made a remark about the tiger. Could he have twisted information, as you suggested? Mazak was misled once before and knew about the consequences. It's very unlikely he would have fallen into a similar trap. Just an opinion, of course.

That leaves Jankowski's book. I didn't read it, but it was published when he was 82. Jankowski's book isn't about tigers only. Maybe this is the reason he decided against details. It's also possible his memory was affected by age to a degree. Maybe he sent most of what he had to Mazak. I don't know. I do know one should be very sure before accusing a zoologist who wrote a great book. Reply