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

[peter]

(03-08-2015, 11:27 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Wonderful write up, as always. To be frank, at this point, morphological studies of tigers is probably over, especially with the current approach on interference. What is weighed is for whatever reason not released.

Though, Peter, regarding the tables you mentioned. I would be interested in a write up discussing the errors you have found. Do you have the Heptner table? All that would be interesting to see, considering somehow they found a way to measure a tiger to 390 cm, a number which would likely only be produced by many flaws.


 

I know about the policy in India. Saw it coming a long time ago. For this reason, I decided to record all data I found many years ago. I now have so many entries that I'm, sizewise, able to distinguish between regions. Everything I found was more or less confirmed by Sunquist and Ullas Karanth. Their findings, if anything, point towards slightly larger tigers today (averages). This also means the old boys often were as accurate as they come. The dismissals of old records and the excuses used (referring to 11-inch tapes), to put it mildly, really are unfounded. Based on what I read and found myself, my conclusion would be that old records often are more reliable.  

As for errors in articles and books written by biologists. In the thread with this name in AVA, there was an extensive debate about Heptner & Sludskij. My advice is to go there and read as much as you can. One day, everything will be deleted. It would be a great pity, as the thread has lots of good information. It already has well over 400,000 views.

Regarding Heptner and Sludskij. I have the table, as I bought the German translation of their book a long time ago in what was then East-Berlin. The book is great, but the table has so many flaws I wouldn't know where to start. The problems with many tables is that nearly all have a mix of reliable and unreliable data. When you have, finally, found the reliable parts and start reading more, you will discover more flaws. Going through the info in this way, you will conclude that that it will take a lot of time to get to a result that could be considered 'reliable' to an extent. It really is a mess.

I've now finished with Sumatran and Javan tigers. All in all, I've about 200 entries I consider reliable. Skulls, weights, body dimensions, measurements, status (wild or captive) and age-groups. It took me some decades to get to that number and I needed many months to find out more about the details when I started on the tables. The next step is India. I will distinguish between region, method used and reliability. My guess is it will take about a year.

As for the collection of data. I think you really have no option but to start a database yourself. In order to get to the number of entries needed, you have to read. For years. I would recommend old books, as they are much more informative than anything written today. I would advice to post your results every now and then, as it could result in useful additions from others interested in measurements. Bury your illusions right away. Be prepared to accept that a lot of what you consider 'reliable' really isn't.

If you want to, I will post scans of the old debates on size and a few tables every now and then. I will post some of my tables when I'm nearly done with the book I want to write. Reasons clear, I assume.

Some general remarks on size to finish with. Although ten feet straight was exceptional two centuries ago as well, longer animals were there no doubt. I agree with Dunbar Brander, who thought 11 feet straight would be just about the limit. My guess is animals exceeding ten feet straight were not limited to Manchuria, Russia and India. There's plenty of evidence of exceptional animals in other parts of Asia. The difference with India and Russia was and is tigers do it more often in those regions.

When we talk subspecies and size, it comes down to averages. There's no question the generally accepted statements are correct, but the tendency to dismiss old records of exceptional tigers is incorrect. It also has resulted in loss of information.

Sumatran tigers is a good example. In many books, you will find that males usually range between 100-140 kg. But tiger 'Slamet' was 148,2 and 150 kg. (I think both records relate to him). When Indonesia was occupied by the Dutch, tigers were considered a plague for a long time. In relatives, Sumatran trigers were much more dangerous than Indian tigers. Some hunters pledged to shoot as many as possible. The magical number was 100 and there's no question some reached that number. A man called Pieters, quoted by Hoogerwerf, shot at least 100 wild Sumatran tigers. Of those, 7 reached 9 feet and over, probably measured 'over curves'. One male measured in this way was 10.2. He was 185 kg. There were more hunters who reached 100 tigers. Some of these also were quite exceptional in size.

Same remarks for Java. The often quoted male shot by De Kanter, at 142 kg. (and not 140), wasn't exceptional. Same for his skull. Based on what I read, I would get to 'good average'. But what about the owner of the 349,00 mm. skull Hoogerwerf found? I measured more skulls well exceeding 335,00 mm. Some of these were longer and heavier than skulls of adult male Amur tigers. Remember the 480-pound male shot near Chabarowsk? The greatest length of his skull was 335 mm. only. The skull of the other, at 550 pounds, was 345,00 mm. Some skulls of male Java tigers were as long or longer. And they were massive as well, approaching 2 kg. in weight. The 349,00 mm. skull would have exceeded 2 kg. if he would have had a mandibula. It isn't easy to get to good assessments, because large mammals often show a considerable amount of variation. My guess is most of the statements on the size and range of subspecies are incorrect. The reason is lack of data. Reply