Captive Lion and Tiger weights

[peter]

CATLOVER

A - RANKING

You no doubt know Tigerluver graduated in Biology. You also know he's a Supermod at Wildfact. He's the Mod of all Mods, that is. Apart from that, he knows about big cats, research and publications. He published about them. We're talking about a peer-reviewed document. If there's one poster who prefers a debate over a ban, it's Tigerluver. In spite of that and the invitation to start a debate about factors affecting the size of wild big cats, you managed to get a verbal warning after a few posts only. Impressive. 

If we add you, using a different alias, received a permanent ban in the recent past, the conclusion is you apparently prefer new dimensions in preference over knowledge. I don't know why you prefer Dances with Lions over an interesting debate, but your wish to top the list of future bans will be seriously considered.  

B - ABOUT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ATTEMPT TO GET TO A DEBATE

b1 - Differences in size between tigers in different regions of India at the level of averages. 

Too limited to get to a solid conclusion, you said. This although you, in your posts, repeatedly referred to tables I posted about this topic in the tiger extinction thread. An intriguing conclusion, as these tables strongly suggest the opposite is true.  

b2 - Genetics 

You said there are no genetic differences between tigers living in different regions in India. This although you visited the tiger extinction thread in order to find the tables on the size of tigers in different regions in India discussed above. Did you miss the publication about genetic differences discussed in that thread, or did you decide it doesn't fit your agenda? 

Anyhow. Those involved in the publication concluded there are distinct genetic differences between different populations. If we add the tables you referred to, the conclusion is there is a relation between regions, genetics and (average) size. At the level of averages, tigers in western and northern India, as well as those in Nepal, are larger than their relatives in other regions. 

One additional remark about the genetic differences between Central India and Sunderban tigers wouldn't be out of place. It is, as you said, true they're very similar, if not one and the same. In spite of that, there are significant differences in morphology and, in particular, size. These differences are so outspoken, that some authorities (on Sunderban tigers) think the time for a new approach (in taxonomy) has arrived. 

The main question is if local races can develop in a few centuries only. Not likely, most of those in the know think. But others have a different opinion. The answer partly depends on the definitions used, but there could be more to it. 

What I read suggests geographical isolation, a (very) limited influx of new genes, weather conditions, a limited amount of food and something I would describe as stress can have a serious effect on a population in a specific region. The delta has produced an impressive number of 'problem tigers' over the years. Not a few of them learned to hunt humans, if not to say they easily topped the table in this department. The question is why they, ehh, have a special relation with twolegs. I never found a satisfying answer, but did notice the number of attacks dropped considerably when the region got the attention it deserves. This suggests most problems in the delta could be man-made.   

Not a few of us think (tiger) subspecies are a result of human intervention, but that's a bit too easy. It's more than likely (the combination of) other factors also have an effect. Interesting topic for a debate. The condition, however, is that all of those interested are prepared to give it a try. One can, as you did, opt for a hit and run strategy and hope for the best, but it's not the most productive choice. It may seem different these days, but every debate starts and ends with respect.      

b3 - Subspecies

You said all tigers in India belong to Panthera tigris tigris, meaning there is no reason to assume there are differences between populations in different regions. Recent information (see b2), however, says this isn't correct: there are distinct differences between regions. This means a discussion about taxonomy and, in particular, definitions can't be avoided. You politely declined, but decided to post your opinion anyhow.    

There's something else to consider. The moment you decide to join a public forum, rules come into play. If you ignore them, problems can be expected. Over here, we don't do misinformation. You knew before you decided to rejoin Wildfact using a back alley, because you was banned for the same reason the first time you joined.   

b4 - Size

At the level of species, lions used to top the table. That, of course, was before Panthera tigris balica, Panthera tigris sondaica, Panthera tigris amoyensis and Panthera tigris virgata were hunted to extinction. At the moment, we have Panthera tigris tigris, Panthera tigris corbetti, Panthera tigris jacksoni, Panthera tigris sumatrae and Panthera tigris altaica. I'm not sure, but my guess is we're, sizewise, close to a draw today. This at the level of species. 

At the level of subspecies, things are somewhat different. Although there is quite a bit of overlap, reliable information says there are significant differences in size between most tiger subspecies. In lions, these differences are more limited.   

Most unfortunately, there's not a lot of reliable information about the size of tigers and lions today. Another problem is the accepted method to measure a wild big cat is applied in different ways. In some regions, big cats are measured in a way I still do not understand. For this reason, we have no option but to use information collected by hunters a century ago. The info they shared strongly suggests tigers in northern India and Nepal, including those living in elevated regions (up to 12,000 feet), were the largest wild big cats a century ago. Based on what I have, I'd say nothing changed in the last decades.    

Individual variation in large carnivores like lions and tigers is pronounced. Reliable information suggests adult wild male lions and tigers both are able to reach, say, 500 pounds and 9.6 in total length measured in a straight line every now and then. Exceptional individuals of both species can exceed 550 pounds and 10.0 in total length measured in a straight line. The difference between both species is tigers do it more often.   
  
b5 - Factors affecting size - Kruger lions

Kruger lions are among the largest in Africa. According to Lt.-Col. J. Stevenson-Hamilton ('Wild Life in South Africa', first published in 1947), a former Warden of the Kruger National Park, " ... an average full-grown lion tapes, ..., a little under 9 feet, a really fine one 9 feet 4 inches, and an exceptionally large one 9 feet 6 inches ... " ('Wild Life in South Africa', pp. 149 in the Panther Edition published in 1957). At that length, adult males average 185-190 kg. Big by any standard, that is.  

You said adult male lions in the northern part of Kruger averaged 200 kg, whereas they averaged 186 kg in the southern part. That's correct. There was a reason and it was discussed in the publication you used. Inform our readers. 

C - TO CONCLUDE

Tigerluver, as he announced, will clear up the mess. The reason, apart from misinformation, is the thread derailed. It was intended to post reliable information about the size of captive big cats. Rumours and opinions are out, that is. 

Our advice, regarding your obsession, is to get a bit of control. For starters, widen your scope. Visit our lion section. We have many good posters and good mods. The result, we think, is unmatched. Read a few threads. You can participate if you want. 

If you want to join a debate about taxonomy, subspecies, definitions, morphology and size, start reading. Make notes. Make sure you're able to contribute in a debate. And don't run when you face opposition.   

If you can't control the urge to continue on lions, tigers, size, fights and all the rest of it, join another forum. Up to you. Reply