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

[peter]

GuateGojira\ dateline='\'1424666923' Wrote: Thanks for your reply Peter, I really appreciate it. Just a few replays here:

1. The plate looks more like a colored picture than a simple draw. The details are too perfect, so I guess that in fact, it is a photograph. What I still ask to you is the scan of the page where it is mentioned the weight of 705 lb, that is because I normally kept all the images of the records, with special care on the original sources. In this case, I will add that page in my database, together with the plate. I will like to know if the other posters also believe that that "draw" in the plate is probably a colored "photograph" or not; for me, it is just too perfect.

2. I was not "harsh" with Mazák, but I confess that maybe I was a little dramatic.
3. I respect your point of view, in the issue that it is a fallacy to think most tigers shot by well-known hunters in immense shooting parties (5.000-10.000 staff) were baited. Maybe you are right, and based in the discussion with Waveriders and others, it seems that the food intake could be lower than we think. However, the descriptions that I have read about this hunting parties in Nepal, always mention that the tigers were baited, so that directs me to think that all tigers hunted in Nepal seems baited, but probably not gorged. However, as I am very conservative (despite some others claims), I tried to found an explanation about the huge weight of that tiger, and the bait issue seems very plausible. Now, your statements about giant tigers in the past are very plausible too, specially with so many reports that can't be ignored just like that.

One final interesting fact, is that this giant tiger of 705 lb was hunted in the Chitwan region, in the same place where the Sauraha male and his relatives lived some time latter. It is possible (or maybe just a wild guess) that the genes of those giant tigers, somehow, lived and were carried by the famous T-105 male and that will explain why there are at least 4 males, captured by scientists, that weighed over 600 lb in that particular area.

Peter say: "Twelve foot tigers? Only on 'forums', most zoologists would say. There are no skulls suggesting there could have been 11 feet tigers, let alone 12 feet. I have a question for them. Which biologist visited India and talked to those in the know? Who visited all parks and museums and talked to rangers, biologists and hunters? Who visited museums in eastern Russia and northern China and measured skulls? Central Asia then?"

I am 100% agree with that. I will like to see people like Yamaguchi measuring some large Bengal tiger skulls in India and Nepal, before reporting his "conclusions". 

1 - A scan of the 10.9 tiger shot in nepal

Below, you'll find the page you're interested in. If you look closely, the page answers more than one question. It confirms the weight of the 10.9 tiger (a), but it also confirms these large shooting parties accounted for many tigers in a short space of time. This means it is very unlikely all these tigers had been baited in the weeks before the shooting party arrived (b). 

The Maharajah's shikari probably kept the tigers and leopards satisfied by driving herbivores into the area where he wanted to keep the big cats, but it seems unlikely all individuals were served for many weeks (preparations for a large shooting party took a long time).  

The record leopard (9.4 'over curves') must have been a giant. He was much longer than the next longest (8.6 'over curves'). I remember the recent report on the giant who was well over 200 pounds when he was caught, but I never read anything on his dimensions when he died in captivity some years ago:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/UtJyvu3.jpg" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title="">

*This image is copyright of its original author

2a - Mazak on skulls 

I agree Mazak should have distinguished between wild and captive Amur tigers. He didn't and the result was confusion. The reason he didn't, I think, was the very limited number of skulls. I can confirm that even skulls of captive Amur tigers are quite rare in European museums. I never saw a skull of a Caspian tiger. Same for skulls of Panthera tigris amoyensis, Panthera leo persica and Panthera tigris tigris. Skulls of wild animals in particular are a rarity in most museums.  

2b - Researchers and preference
 
I also think Mazak could have been preferenced to a degree. A few examples. The longest lion skull he measured was in the Zoological Museum Amsterdam (pp. 196 in the German translation). The greatest total length wasn't, as Mazak wrote, 402,00 mm., but 408,00 mm. My measurement was confirmed by the conservator and a few others, all qualified people. I also measured some of the tiger skulls he mentioned in his book. In nearly every case, the result in greatest total length was a bit below Mazak's result. To be sure, I again had all results tested. I didn't tell the others about my result. All confirmed what I had found. 

Maybe the tiger skulls had shrunk with age and maybe the lion skull kept on growing after he had perished? Mazak wasn't the only one who was creative while keeping books. I remember a well-known researcher who wrote Kruger male lion skulls averaged 380,00 mm. in greatest total length. Then J.H. Mazak started measuring lion skulls. The results of his quest were published recently. His average for Kruger lion skulls was 369,00 mm., a difference of 11 mm. (...). The difference wasn't a result of sample size. Maybe the sample was different? Maybe the lion skulls shrunk when they saw Mazak coming in. Who knows? Preference is a powerful drive, but it has a few disadvantages. I can give you more examples.

One would expect preference to have an effect at a higher level of abstraction as well. This, however, is not the case. My conclusions regarding lions, tigers and average size are very close to those of Mazak. Same for many other conclusions Mazak got to. I also agree with Yamaguchi's conclusions on lions, tigers and average size. Preference, therefore, doesn't seem to affect conclusions at a higher level of abstraction. It just increases or decreases the greatest total length in individual skulls at times. I wouldn't worry about it. All researchers mentioned, I think, are both productive and excellent. Mazak in particular is someone I respect. The reason is he opened a lot of doors for me. This will not be forgotten.

2c - Mazak on the size of Amur and Indian tigers 

I can't agree with your verdict on Mazak's assessment regarding Amur tigers. Mazak based his conclusions on the data he had. When his book was published, there was no doubt that Amur tigers, at the level of averages, topped most lists by a margin. They still do. Amur tigers are longer and taller than all other big cats. This conclusion is true for both captive and wild Amur tigers. Same for females, I think.

Same for weight. In his book, Mazak referred to 9 wild male Amur tigers. They were 245, 250, 184, 196, 217, 195, 270, 250 and 221 kg. If we deduct the captive males he added, the average is 225,33 kg. Remember all data were collected before 1983 and most probably before 1965 (the first edition of his book). 

The question is if the weights he used were reliable. Another question is if he included all male tigers. We now know wild male Amur tigers only very seldom exceed 200 kg., but this could be a result of changing conditions. Russian authorities wrote the average weight of wild Amur tigers decreased until the seventies of the last century. Maybe the average found a decade ago (176-177 kg.) was the bottom of a long period of decline and maybe they really averaged 215-220 kg. half a century ago. Maybe conditions will improve and maybe this will be reflected in the average weight.   

Captive Amur tigers didn't suffer from deteriorating conditions and hunters. Based on everything I have, the conclusion is the average for adult males ranges between 450-500 pounds and probably closer to 500 (about 480, I think). Although one has to assume this average probably is higher than the average for animals who face tough conditions, it seems more realistic for a big cat averaging close to 9.8 straight and 14,5 inches in greatest total skull length.

Indian tigers, in spite of the overwhelming amount of reliable data, are an enigma. The problem is the amount of regional variation and a lack of data on the extremes. Although I also think the average for wild Indian male tigers in northern India, Nepal and Assam probably exceeds 200 and even 210 kg., it is a fact all samples I saw were small. And then there is adjustment, of course.

As a result, we have no other option but to use data collected a long time ago in north-east and north-west India and these say wild male Amur tigers were a bit heavier than wild male Assam and wild male Nepal tigers about a century ago. Mazak, therefore, wasn't wrong when he, in 1965 and again in 1983, wrote Amur tigers were heavier and more robust than Indian tigers. But he wasn't sure, as he wrote some Indians tigers also were very large. That's why he added 'seems' in his statement on the size of Amur and Indian tigers.             

3 - Baiting

This was discussed above. I agree with the statement that many Indian tigers were baited before they were shot. This no doubt would have increased many weights mentioned in letters and articles to a degree.

As for large shooting parties. I do not doubt shikaris tried to concentrate many large tigers in the area designed. I also do not doubt they were baited to a degree in that wild herbivores would have been driven into the perimeter they had in mind. That, however, doesn't mean that every individual tiger was baited. It close to impossible to bait every individual when the perimeter has more than one adult tiger, for the simple reason wild tigers, apart from those they know, do not allow others close to the kill they made. Anyone able to lure every individual to the spot where meals were served would have been a true magician.

4 - Genes and size

There's no question that tigers inhabiting isolated regions decline in size over time. The time needed, I think, is well below a century. If a population gets below a minimum and conditions result in increased stress, the process is accelerated. The Sunderbans is a good example, but there are more.

One would expect to see the opposite in large and well-stocked parks, especially when there are corridors to others parks. Protection also will have an effect in that large individuals will be able to pass on their genes more often than in unprotected regions. The region just south of the Himalayas always produced large individuals. One reason is tigers are able to move over remarkable distances without being shot on sight.

The question on genes and size is difficult to answer. Over time, typical treats will emerge in a region, but I also noted most healthy regions produced large individuals. Not to the degree seen in lions perhaps, but there is a significant amount of individual variation in most regions. The exceptions to the rule are Bali, Java and, perhaps, eastern Russia, but not Sumatra. The lack of variation could have been a result of a combination of a decline in numbers and, as a result of habitat loss, stress. Sumatra tigers were different in that the decline in numbers was slower than in the other three regions. Sumatra was and still is wild country.

5 - Museums

It seems many think that museums and special collections are here to stay. Not true. In the Netherlands, a number of large state-paid museums were forced to merge. They didn't succeed in all cases. At times, a collection was sold. A large part of the collection of the Tropenmuseum (Museum for the Tropics) was recently sold to Egypt (...). This means I now have to travel to Cairo in order to be able to read the hunter magazins I had in mind. 

When neo-liberalism is here to stay, chances are collections will be bought by wealthy individuals. Maybe museums will be forced to sell skulls in times of need. Dutch museums would be targeted by some, because of the number of skulls from Java, Sumatra and Bali. Most Bali skulls have been sold to wealthy collectors. Imagine what could happen to skulls in museums in India, Russia and a number of former Sovjet republics. 

Over the years, I noticed a reduction of large skulls in museums. There are few tiger skulls exceeding 14 inches in greatest total length in European museums today. No wonder researchers dismiss records of 15- and 16-inch tiger skulls out of hand. A great pity, I think. Reply