Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[GuateGojira]

(10-14-2022, 10:13 PM)Pckts Wrote: Sankhala, Brander and Hicks all specify their poor smell and I actually believe Schaller did as well.
The hunters mentioned are every bit the expert of any others you mentioned. Let’s not discredit them because you don’t like their profession. In fact many hunters are experts that became wildlife conservationists like Brander and Hicks. 
And who better to understand a Tigers smell than someone laying within feet of them while the Tiger is on high alert.

I am not discrediting anybody, but you must understand the difference between "qualitative" and "quantitative" data.

Qualitative data are all the random observations made by a person of an especific behaviour, while this is usefull for reference it has the problem that been a single event, we don't know if this is a regular behaviour or just a random situation caused by an especific event. A tiger under the presure of a hunt will behave completelly different than a regular tiger patroling its territory.

Quantitative data are a series of events recorded and studied that suggest or prove that an especific behaviour is a regular event in an especific species. These type of studies are made only via the long term studies like those from Kanha, Chitwan, Naragahole and Panna (and at some point also Ranthambore). This is the base of real science as there is evidence that what was observed is not just a random event, but something that actually happen with regularity.

Under this situation, observations of hunters like Brander and Hicks (and also Corbett) are at the best "qualitative", as they do not focus in long therm studies (something completely alien to them) but in study the forms to found and kill the animal. On the other side, we have the modern scientist that actualy compile and study these events and stablish conclutions that can be statistically studied, or at the best, that can be objetivelly studied and analyzed without the use of a gun.

Schaller found that the sense of smell in tigers is used for communication purposes and in a lower form, to hunt. Sankhala dissagree with him (and with any western biologist, by the way) and he is the one that said that tigers do not have sence of smell, but his conclutions are incorrect. Check this abstract from a previous post that I made about this:

2. Tiger smell marks:

It seems obvious, even for “beginners” that tiger communicate they presence and demark territory using marks of urine and feces. However that is not the case for Sankhala. In page 27 to 29 he describe how poor is the smell of the tiger, so much that he describe an experiment when he use a dead pig hidden in the tiger place and says that the tigers failed to found it. It is accepted by many scientist that the main senses used to hunt are eyes and earing, but Dr Siedensticker describes an event in page 37 of his book “Tigers” of 1996, when the tigers 101 (the first one to be radiocollared in the world) found a boar using both sound and scent. But at the end, tigers do not normally relay in smell to found prey, but what happen with the demarcation? Well, according with Sankhala the tiger’s feces and urine do not have any smell, the smell came from the tiger itself! In page 28 and 29 he described how he searched a tigress in this form and he concludes that is a defense mechanism and in page 28 he says that the grimace face that the tiger made is not related with the courtship or mating or territorialism and that the same expression can be obtained spraying the tiger whit its own urine. He also says that he personally smelled the urine of the tigers in the zoo and did not found any smell!!!

But what the other tiger experts says? Well Valmik Thapar from page 102 to 106 of his book “Tiger the Ultimage Guide” of 2004 perfectly explain how the tiger use the urine with other fluids to mark the territory and contrary to Sankhala claim, he clearly describe a smell that is musky and strong. Thapar says: “The smell can last for up to forty days and is an excellent indication of how recently a tiger has passed by and whether or not the area is occupied” (Thappar, 2004; page 103). He also describes how the flehmen is used to identify the sex, age, health status and disposition of the tiger. So, how is that Sankhala did not identify any smell?

Other testimony is from Steven Mills in his book “Tiger” from 2004, which in page 79 to 81 describe the same information shared by Thappar. He quotes Schaller’s opinion that the smell was “very musky” and that “it was discernible even to the human nose at a distance”. Mills says: “The “marking fluids” has since been studied by two scientists, R. L. Brahmachary and J. Dutta (in Tigers of the World), who have found that, though its base is uric acid, the more existing scents are probably carried in some of the other components of the fluid, including chemicals like phenylethylamine, cadaverine and putrescine. Somewhere in there are pheromones, the chemicals that stimulate animals in their sexual activities” (Mills, 2004). He also describes a mark found by Dr Dave Smith that he personally smelled and described it like “damp and musky”.

Finally, but not the last, Dr Sunquist in his monograph of 1981 of the tigers in Chitwan, explain how tigers use the pages 60 and 61 describe the method used by tigers and also describe how the tigers try to renew the marks at least every 3 to 4 days, depending of they travels through the territory (I don’t remember the specific page of this, but is in the monograph).

In conclusion, in this point, we can clearly see that the conclusion of Sankhala is incorrect, again, and that thanks to the testimonies of other experts we can see why the tiger use this type of chemical communication.

In conclution, the information provided by Biologist in the field shows that tiger had good sence of smell, not as good as dogs or bears, but better than humans. They use it primary for communication purposes and just in a very few cases, to hunt a prey.

Hope this helps to clarif any confusion about this issue. Reply