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

[peter]

(12-09-2018, 11:21 AM)Wolverine Wrote: Ussuri brown bear getting out of the den, Bikin national park, camera-trap.

Another massive specimen of Ussuri brown bear:

Amur tigers and bears in Sihote Alin state reserve"

Very nice videos, Wolverine.

I knew bears were robust over there (referring to males of both species), but male Amur tigers do not seem to be lacking a lot in this department. I know it's tricky to use videos to get to estimates, but they do seem different from one or two decades ago. Not long and tall, as their captive relatives (referring to Amur tigers in northwestern Europe), but stocky and robust. Are they developing a new model, or have sleeping genes been re-activated?

When records of Baikov and other hunters are discussed by posters, length often features. Bengt Berg, however, wrote size is a result of weight and the dimensions of the skull. 

According to V. Jankowski, who most probably saw more wild Amur tigers than anyone, the Sungari river tiger shot in 1943 was an exceptional individual in all respects. Measured 'over curves' (V. Mazak, 1983), the tiger was 11.6 (350,52 cm.) in the flesh. In his book 'Tiger, Deer and Ginseng' (1993), V. Jankowski says the length of the fresh skin was more than 375 cm. (over 12.4). Very long, but still significantly shorter than a skin from Mongolia or Amurland (not quite clear) mentioned in Rowland Ward's Records (1928 issue, pp. 478, see also Pocock, JBNHS, Vol. 33, pp. 529). That skin was 13 feet and 6 inches (411,48 cm.)! Three other skins from that region, by the way, were 12.4, 12.0 and 11 feet and three and a half inches.

According to Pocock, Satunin saw an enormous Caspian tiger with a skin of at least 14 feet:

" ... But I must not suppress a surprising record published by Satunin, who states he saw in the flesh a Transcaspian tiger of 'colossal dimensions' ... 'hardly smaller than an ordinary native horse'. Its stripped skin from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail ... was three and a half metres - that is to say about 11 and a half feet. This would have meant a total length of about 14 and a half feet! I must leave it at that, with the comment that the learned Russian was not a sportsman 'out' for records ... " (Pocock, in the JBNHS, Vol. 33, pp. 522). 

Returning to the Sungari river tiger. In his letter to V. Mazak of May 1970, V. Jankowski wrote the tiger was at least 300 kg. In his book, he said the tiger was 350 kg. (772 pounds). We'll never know the exact weight, but the photograph suggested it was a robust and large-skulled male. Exceptional in that respect?

Not quite, as others allegedly shot even heavier Amur tigers. In a recent evaluation of hunting records published a decade ago, all records of tigers exceeding 550 pounds, with the exception of one, were dismissed for lack of credible evidence. I understand, but also don't doubt Baikov, who wrote

" ... The muscular system of the body is extremely massive and perfectly developed. Especially amazing is the powerful structure of the muscles of the chest, fore legs, neck, back and chewing muscles. They are great, roundish, very elastic and tather short; muscles of the hindlegs are oblong and also elastic.

The size of the fully adult Manchurian tiger is: the total length is 3,90 meters, from which the tail is 100 cm. The height in the shoulders is 115 cm., width of the forehead (between the ears) - 30 cm., volume of the fore leg is 60 cm., volume of the chest is 220 cm.. The volume of the neck is 100 cm., the weight is 320 kg. (or 20 poods) ... " ('The Manchurian Tiger', 1925, English translation of A. Shevlakov of 2000, pp. 9).

This record was dismissed, but a 560-pound male he shot near the Korean border in 1911 was accepted. I understand why records of much larger tigers were dismissed, but I wonder why a man who hunted all his life invested so much energy in trying to portray a tiger that must have flabberghasted many.

Anyhow. What I'm saying is Amur tigers today could be a mere blueprint of their relatives shot a century ago. Their former relatives, and those shot in Manchuria in particular, could have been much more robust. The genes are still there, as I saw a few of them in the seventies and eighties of the previous century. Immense animals, they were.

If the Russians keep it up and succeed in even partly recreating conditions that existed a century ago, tigers could respond. Biologists interested in capturing them could be in for a surprise. Just like in Nepal and northern India, when they discovered 500-pound scales were not quite adequate. My guess is that exceptional individuals will only be seen in completely undisturbed, well-stocked and densely vegetated regions far away from settlements. In hill country with deep snow in winter, tigers need to be athletic. Reply