WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers
|
 (10-14-2022, 09:30 PM)Pckts Wrote: I’ll post examples from them as well as quotes. In comparison to the other two mentioned they specifically mention how bad it is. We’re talking with in a few feet and can’t smell them or kills where the tigers walk right past without smelling. But if even a leaf ruffles or branch cracks the Tigers go into immediate alert. Even as far as to mention they can possible hear a rapid heart beat if close enough but couldn’t prove it obviously. Communication is through the Jacobson organ which allows analyzation of the scent. That is weird, as Mazák, Sunquist, Karanth, Schaller, Karanth, Michelle and even Thapar (which regularly quote other old authors) conclude that tigers had regular smell sence, like any other cat. The only one that said that it was "bad" was Sankhala. Now, if you are going to quote hunting tales, sorry but I prefer to stay with the real experts.  (10-14-2022, 09:34 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(10-14-2022, 09:30 PM)Pckts Wrote: I’ll post examples from them as well as quotes. In comparison to the other two mentioned they specifically mention how bad it is. We’re talking with in a few feet and can’t smell them or kills where the tigers walk right past without smelling. But if even a leaf ruffles or branch cracks the Tigers go into immediate alert. Even as far as to mention they can possible hear a rapid heart beat if close enough but couldn’t prove it obviously. Communication is through the Jacobson organ which allows analyzation of the scent. 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. (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. 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. (10-14-2022, 10:53 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:1 off observations isn’t at play here. In fact, the hunters mentioned have far more experience than any researcher you’ve named. Their observations and experience are second to none.(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. Comparing someone like Thapar to brander isn’t even in the same realm. You’re talking about real hands on experience vs limited observations. Even some modern day naturalists have more experience than him. I’ll post actually quotes when I have access. (10-15-2022, 12:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: 1 off observations isn’t at play here. In fact, the hunters mentioned have far more experience than any researcher you’ve named. Their observations and experience are second to none. Sorry, but there is no debate here. You are putting hunters with no idea about real ecology and biology about animals over real Biologist and experts that actually study an animal beyond any bias with real evidence, is simply stupid. And by the way, where I compare Thapat with Brander??? The observations of a hunter are random sights with no real analisys, except the fact that they use this information to kill the animal, that is all. If you think that Brander is over Thapar is up to you and your own perspective, but no scientist is going to take your opinion seriosly if you tell them this, that is for sure. In fact, there is no point in defending Thapar, as people like Sunquist and Karanth already described him as on of the top experts in tigers in history. About Brander, well it as a good observer and hunter, but....that is all. Silly comparison dude, honestly. So, at the end of this, this conversation do not make sense, and I know of you likeness to debate things that do not make sense. So I will leave this here as there is no point to argue with someone that do not even tried to understand what I try to explain in my previous post (qualitative vs quantitative) and that his only argument is compare a hunters guesses against top biologists/tiger experts. (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. You believe incorrectly, check what Dr Schaller says about tiger smell:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I think that Tom Brakefield summarize it very well, for all the cats in general:  *This image is copyright of its original author So, there is no such thing as "bad smell sense" at all, it is just that they use it with other purposes. But definitelly any wild cat has much better sense of smell than any human.
On the sense of smell:
Yes, I know that I told @Pckts that I am not going to follow the debate, BUT I have the information at hand, so why not finish this thing right now? The sense of smell of the cats is acute, but not as good as dogs and bears, and that include the great cats like the tiger. This is what I said, but Pckts says that the accounts of some hunters like Brander says that tigers had "bad" sense of smell, or no sense at al! However, checking the information available from accurate observations of experts in the field, the evidence shows that tigers not only have good sense of smell, but that they can (rarely) use it to hunt. I am going to put the images of the sources, no need to explain as they are self-explanatory. 1 - Schaller:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - Karanth:  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - Sunquist:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author 4 - Thapar:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author 5 - McDougal:  *This image is copyright of its original author 6 - Richard Perry - well in this one there is a full chapter of 17 pages discussing this point with several reports, and this is the conclution:  *This image is copyright of its original author 7 - Seidensticker - this event shows that while the tiger normally use the hearing and sight to hunt, in some situations it may use its nose too.  *This image is copyright of its original author Conclution: Like I said the beggining of all this, tigers like any other cat, had good sence of smell, no better than a dog, but good enough. Also, they use it mostly for communication purposes, and only rarely for hunting, but that doesn't meant that its bad, as it may be 30 times better than ours, like this source (Seidensticker and Lumpkin) suggest with the lions:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author And about the claim of Sankhala that the tiger urine do not smell at all, well we have this video of Nigel Marven smelling the tiger urine and confirming the reports of all the modern experts (check minute 38): Sorry, the video is in Russian, but those that saw the original video remember when he said that smell like musk. Hope this clarify, once for all, the power and usage of the sence of smell in tigers (and cats overall). EDIT: More information about the topic. I found this other study, which is based in the sense of smell from R.L. Brahmachary and J. Dutta (in the book "Tigers of the World" from 1987). I put only the two first pages that are related with the point of discussion.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I think that this all this information, there is no need to debate anymore. We now know the information about the sense of smell available for tigers. (10-15-2022, 01:16 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(10-15-2022, 12:29 AM)Pckts Wrote: 1 off observations isn’t at play here. In fact, the hunters mentioned have far more experience than any researcher you’ve named. Their observations and experience are second to none. You're right, there is no debate. The hunters mentioned are far more experienced and valid. In fact like I've already stated, they've gone on to be the ones to hire said biologists to work under them. A biologist/zoologist reads books about these people, some get field work and even less actually maintain field work throughout their careers. In comparison, Brander, Almeida and Hicks spent their entire lives in the field. The idea that a so called "expert" isn't bias holds as much water as claiming the Hunters mentioned were bias. Evidence is an umbrella term, there are many different kinds of it and the Hunters mentioned by far have the best 1st hand versions of it. For instance lets look at prey studies. When prey preferences are calculated, they usually use scat samples. A technique that is specifically notated to be bias towards smaller animals. All experts will and have stated such. So these "experts" travel a limited area for a year or two and gather scat when they can. From this limited data they have to then extrapolate these small samples to try and encompass an entire species. While Hicks, Brander, Sankhala, Almeida and so on have witnessed first hand predations and seen 100s of more carcasses from way more locations. Quote:So, at the end of this, this conversation do not make sense, and I know of you likeness to debate things that do not make sense. So I will leave this here as there is no point to argue with someone that do not even tried to understand what I try to explain in my previous post (qualitative vs quantitative) and that his only argument is compare a hunters guesses against top biologists/tiger experts.You like to point fingers but not to look in the mirror. You're the one not trying to understand, instead you get defensive because you prefer a documented scientific method as oppose to real experts who didn't worry about being published at the time and instead gained their expertise through real life experience. It's why now they are the ones who are being quoted in these papers, not the other way around. Quote:(qualitative vs quantitative) and that his only argument is compare a hunters guesses against top biologists/tiger experts.Feel free to stack up their resumes. Pick any biologist/tiger expert today, compare their experience to Brander, Hicks, Almeida or Sankhala etc. They will fall short by a significant amount. This is why Schaller specifically asked to work with Sankhala to help and advise him, and of course Sankhala is one of the ones mentioning the poor sense of smell for Tigers. (10-15-2022, 01:54 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(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. Quote:You believe incorrectly, check what Dr Schaller says about tiger smell:He literally states numerous people who've determined it's sense of smell to be poor. The problem is that you're changing the debate IMO. Tigers can absolute sense when a female is in heat or the urine samples of others hence why they have the jacobson organ but they do not use their sense of smell to hunt nor to avoid dangerous situations which in turn means that it's not their primary sense used to stay alive. Quote:Tom Brakefield summarize it very well, for all the cats in general:He states the same, cats don't rely on their sense of smell the way dogs do or any animal does that uses it to hunt. On top of that he's generalizing not speaking on specific species. I stated that Tigers have a poor sense of smell which by comparison to their other senses, they do. My "guess" is that they could have a poorer sense than Lions in comparison due to their smaller nasal cavity. With two cats being so close in size a larger nasal cavity will allow both oxygen and smells to enter in a larger rate and since there's no real lung capacity differences that I'm aware of, I'd think more scent particles allows better analysis. Now here's exactly what Brander said and experiments he did to test it  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author And after reading all others you posted I don't feel the need to continue to search to find Hicks and Sankhala since they all are saying the same thing. Quote:Like I said the beggining of all this, tigers like any other cat, had good sence of smell, no better than a dog, but good enough. Also, they use it mostly for communication purposes, and only rarely for hunting, but that doesn't meant that its bad, as it may be 30 times better than ours, like this source (Seidensticker and Lumpkin) suggest with the lions:No one is saying a Tiger doesn't communicate through Smell, but they don't use it to hunt or avoid danger. In that regard it is poor and that is what is said by all of these hunters and researchers alike. You can be a foot away from a Tiger and it'll walk right past you, it doesn't matter if it's up or downwind, they don't rely on it. If you stand a foot away from a tiger or break a leaf, they'll see or hear you instantly and pounce. 
As far as I have read, tiger's top senses are hearing and vision and i think they have the most developed ones among the big cats.
As to their sense if smell, i think that it's poorest among the big cats but better than that of humans. 
For what it’s worth, a tiger at my local zoo was rather well known for her hatred of chicken. Her sense of smell was certainly strong enough that zookeepers could not give her meat from a bucket if there had been any chicken in it beforehand (without very thoroughly scrubbing it first).
(Also I’m not sure what this topic has to do with how much tigers weigh.)
Sankhala
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
@GuateGojira
Do you have the pdfs of the STP site from this link? https://russia-wcs-org.translate.goog/en...x_tr_hl=en When I click on any of the chapters it gives an xml error. Can you send the pdf of the 7th chapter if possible? Thanks.
About the size of Wagdoh
There is a phrase in Spanish that says: "Una imagen vale más que mil palabras” (An image is worth more than a thousand words) and following the advice, I have prepared a graphic representation of Wagdoh compared to a man of 180 cm. I have chosen a photograph of Wagdoh walking and I have tried to adjust it to a length that with the stretched body measured 207 cm and I present the result.  *This image is copyright of its original author The height up to the shoulders is greater than what the measurement was supposed to have obtained, but the measurement of a dead or sedated animal is not exactly what it would have in life, with muscles that contract and stretch in every movement and let’s not forget that Wagdoh had been dead for several days when he was measured, so rigor mortis could have altered the data collected to some extent. I have not doubt that no photograph can replace a tape measure, but what there is no doubt is that it gives us a very representative and approximate picture of reality. I also enclose photocopy of the page. 73 from the book "The leopard in India" The report by J.C.Daniels quotes R G Burton, who talks about inaccuracies and exaggerations in the measurements of leopards and tigers and suggests that when we talk about certain sizes the measurements should be drawn on a wall to give us an idea of what we say.  *This image is copyright of its original author As to whether Wagdoh was a big tiger or not, if the measures provided are correct, it seems to me a HUGE tiger. (10-14-2022, 09:15 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:ramnagar corbett male(10-14-2022, 01:34 PM)abhisingh7 Wrote: WAGDOH was 101 cm in straight line , then . |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 7 Guest(s) |