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

[peter]

BIG CAT EVOLUTION - II

This post is a continuation of the previous one. It has a number of illustrations that belong to the summary in the previous post. Some are directly related to a distinct part in the text, but most are not.

I used a pair of scissors to cut every table, map or photograph I wanted to use for the summary. I then used tape to get the result to the page. After that, every page was scanned in a way that showed the image as clear as possible. This means the page number is in a different position every time. It also explains why some pages are larger than others. I agree it's a bit rude, but it does the job.


THE RELATION BETWEEN TIGER SIZE AND HERBIVORE SIZE

I was surprised by the recent discovery of cat skulls in Tibet. It could mean our idea about big cat evolution has to be revised. I also was surprised by the size and robustness of some of the Pleistocene tiger skulls found in central and northern China. I measured and photographed over 350 skulls myself and never saw something even close in robustness. The owners of these skulls must have been very large animals.

The only tigers that seem to be in the same league today, I think, are those living in north-east India. The difference with other tiger regions is north-east India is the only place where tigers still live next to very large herbivores. In contrast to what many think, some of these tigers really specialize on some of these big herbivores. Immatures are targeted mostly, but adults also are killed at times. This, I think, could explain why some of the Pleistocene tigers were large animals: the larger the herbivores, the larger the tiger. One could say large size probably was a result of plenty of food, but I think tigers really hunted large herbivores. They still do in north-east India.  

Any proof? No. But there is circumstantial evidence. The bison-hunting wolves in Canada are larger than anywhere else. Brown bears feasting on salmon in coastal regions are larger than relatives living in other regions. Polar bears are the largest of all bears. Proteine no doubt is the drive in size, but that doesn't mean predators feasting on large animals are scavengers. The extra size they have is a result of hunting large animals, I think. Protein is a deceiving factor, that is.        

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply