WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
Peter,
nice post, but please allow me a few remarks for the sake of accuracy and some personal unbiased comments. 1) Your assumption of length A in the table of average brown bears morphometric parameters (of a particular North American population and not to be generalized) to be a length between pegs is not correct. First of all the measurement includes the tail. Second it is a distance from tip of tail to tip of nose measured “along side of body”. Although it is not specified, as for A1, to be a distance with measuring tape following a “contour”, it does not appear to be a straight line distance but a curved distance probably not thoroughly matching any contour. Therefore although the contour length A1 is, as you wrote, a head-and-body measurements with tail not included measured along the contour of the head and vertebral column, you overestimate the straight line head-and-body measurements of brown bears in northeastern Siberia provided by the table you showed in your post. However the correct result would amplify the meaning of your consideration concerning the compact build of a brown bear body, an animal who is built like a tank. In spite of this, I would not generalize the concept too much because there is the need to look at much more data to have the full picture and because brown bears in the Russian Far East are reliably reported at much larger body size then that of any tiger. Concerning the possible likely outcome of a confrontation between Amur tigers and brown bears in their natural environment, here follow a few of my considerations. 2) You presented a morphometrics table of brown bears of north eastern Siberia (all samples in that table are outside of present and past Amur tiger habitat range) and compare it to North India tigers just very briefly reminding the bear animal to be actually confronted is not the light north eastern Siberia brown bear but the similar size and heavier Ursus arctos lasiotus, a subspecies ranging from northeastern China to southern Russian Far East (Manchuria, Ussuri and Maritime Territories and Okhotsk shore of Siberia). Well, Ursus arctos lasiotus, the brown bear subspecies living in Amur tiger range, is not only much heavier but even a significantly larger subspecies then the form from northeastern Siberia. Apart from reliable body weights from literature, any study of skull size of animals from the area show evidence it is pretty much about the size of the Kamchatka form U. a. piscator (some scientists state it is even larger, although this, assuming it is actually the case, may apply to the population living along the Okhotsk sea coast only). 3) I do not digress on confrontation of northeastern Siberia brown bears and Amur tigers as these encounters do not occurr in reality. At the same time in my opinion it is not so difficult to say something sensible on the outcome of possible confrontations between adult Amur male tigers and adult male brown bears in southern Far Eastern Russia (U. a. lasiotus) when looking at data and evidence and analyzing these elements properly and not with the biased eyes I have too much often noticed in discussions by the very most of people who mostly argue on the basis of animal preferences but without deeply understanding what they are talking about. An approach that I instead categorically refuse, hopefully successfully. It is very much obvious to me that you have the potential to analyze matters rather properly. I can state that adult Amur male tigers nowadays weigh on average around 180 kg on the basis of undisputable data of over 40 different individuals I have in my records to date weighed in the last 40 years by scientists. Perhaps in the past they may have averaged 210-215 kg according to my criteria to select the most reliable historical records (sub-sample counted at N>30 of the whole historical records), although it is a bit hard to pool together such a sample in terms of pure generalized statistical criteria. In modern time the maximum weights measured have fallen so far in the range 200-207 kg with a single particularly large individual scaling 225 kg. The brown bear form we are talking about has an average of condylobasal length of skull in adult males ranging from around 360 mm to around 400 mm depending from samples with normal maximum at around 420 mm (and record skulls up to around 430 mm). Greatest skull length averages up to approximately 430 mm depending from sample with maximum up to 455 mm for the largest males (undisputable data from scientific studies). Hunting records do even exceed this last figure. Anyone who has studied bears deeply (and I did it) can understand what these data mean in terms of brown bear body size and mass even more then from the relatively scant reliable weight records. The animals from Amur-Ussuri region are reliably reported weighing on average around 270 kg, as you highlighted, and topping the scale at over 320 kg under normal maximum. The largest individuals killed during the Fall have been reported scaling well in excess of 500 kg (and therefore estimable at least at 400 kg during Spring). Anyone who has studied brown bears and observed them in the wild can fully realize the impact of their enormous strength, power, endurance, weapons, armours as well as of their dominant, indomitable and aggressive attitude of their mind. A big Amur male tiger attempting to predate even just an average adult male brown bear is either a foolish or desperate or both, pretty much like a single Pleistocene lion would have been entering a cave and hoping not to find an adult male cave bear hibernating because even if caught by surprise such a beast would have been much more then a match for him in the very most of circumstances (remember that hibernating modern bears, and likely cave bears as well, are part-hibernators, reducing body temperature, respiratory and heart frequencies, but being able to rapidly re-establish full functionality of all vital organs in case of hibernation interruption). 4) Even if a large adult male tiger towered an average adult male brown bear, I do not think it is a distinct advantage for the tiger. The bear is plantigrade and not digitigrade and therefore has a much more stable platform to wrestle, deliver paw blows with more power and pushing / pulling with the head and neck strength while biting. The body build of a brown bear is significantly more adapted to fight then that of a big cat. Comparing animals at similar weight the latter is longer in the lumbar as well as also in the sacral regions because this is what he needs for high jumping and leaping abilities and for high top speed. It is not a feature an animal needs to fight better. It actually penalizes wrestling while fighting. In the far past I have intensively studied dog anatomy and dog breeds and have owned many dogs (still own one) who I loved/love all more then humans. As a very much secondary conclusion emerged from my studies was that all fighting dog breeds and best fighting dogs have and have been naturally selected with relatively short lumbar vertebral section as that proved one of the feature improving the effectiveness of a dog in a fight easing the way forces are transferred from the hind legs to the shoulders and neck (my studies were however of course focused on completely different aims then understanding what makes a dog good in a fight). From my zoological studies and analyses I have computed a ratio between the lumbar vertebral and the presacral vertebral column of tigers at nearly 34 % on average while brown bears at less then 32 %. Cervical area of tigers is also proportionally longer (ca. 25.5 % vs 21.2%). Tigers have therefore a much proportionally longer neck which is not much useful in a fight as well. On the opposite the thoracic section is significantly shorter in tigers (less then 41 % vs over 47%) leaving in a brown bear more volume for hearth, shoulder and thoracic muscles and lung capacity. Furthermore bears have proportionally larger chest and more robust scapula with a proportionally larger processus articularis and features like the postscapular fossa and the teres major process both wanting in Canids and Felids. Brown bears have very much developed these characters and have significantly proportionally longer and wider scar areas for the teres major muscle, longer deltoid ridge / deltopectoral crest in the humerus allowing more deltoid and pectoral muscles and other features. The result is more thoracic and forepaw muscles volume at a given size. If you combine all the above with the general bone structure of brown bears markedly heavier then that of modern big cats (I do not demonstrate this as it takes too long but please trust me), the final result is an animal significantly more suited for fight then a big cat but in the canine length (however records of upper canines total crown height of Kamchatka and Alaska brown bears measure over 50 mm and 60 mm respectively), biting force at similar body mass, grappling abilities, agility and speed. The brown bear more then compensates these latter handicaps with an evident more solid, compact, powerful, stronger and more armoured body build at similar body mass, with a more stable body platform being plantigrade, significantly more stamina and longer reach due to wider chest and shoulders and proportionally longer forelegs. In terms of claw effectiveness the brown bear definitely does not lack much compared to a tiger as claws from forepaws measuring 150 mm in Alaska specimens and 120 mm in Kamchatka ones have been reported. Even in the very much unlikely case an adult male brown bear would be grounded by an adult male tiger, brown bears are so strong that while fighting they have shown to be able to raise back on their hind legs by pure strength after being grounded by another and heavier / larger bear who was pushing him down with his whole weight and strength and simultaneously biting him. This is a very much remarkable feast of enormous strength. An adult male tiger, significantly lighter then an adult male brown bear on average, would not be so much of a problem to handle even because the bear has a cardiovascular system delivering more stamina then that of a big cat and a tiger cannot definitely kill an adult either male or female brown bear in short order. The only real chance the tiger could have to get at least initially the upper hand in a fight would be to surprise the bear jumping on him from behind and ground him, but the bear sense of smell is exceptionally developed and it is unlikely, although possible, a tiger around would be unnoticed by a wandering bear. 5) The brown bear killed by an Amur tiger you showed in the picture in my opinion is clearly not an adult bear and perhaps not even a male. I am a bit amazed a scientist like Mazak did not notice the animal show several dentition characters (wear and colour) as well as feet sole wear (more difficult to judge) typical of a young animal, either a sub-adult or a young adult at most. My statements seem also to be confirmed, for what is possible to ascertain, by the head proportions of the carcass. I therefore suggest that bear was either a sub-adult male / female or a young adult female. I completely rule out him to be an adult male (8-10 year old and older). Maybe the animal was a sub-adult male or a large sub-adult / young adult female, but I remind that the mind of a brown bear 2.5-5 years old even if weighing more then 170 kg is far from being as strong as necessary to fight such a dangerous and powerful animal of similar size like an adult male tiger Conclusively, for an adult male Amur tiger (weight range 146-207 / 225 kg) to attack deliberately for predation an adult male brown bear, an animal normally weighing in the range 260-321 kg with largest individuals up to 400 kg or more in the Spring based on skull size and half a ton or more in the Fall, is in my opinion committing a very much almost certain suicide if the action is taken to the end. Tigers are very intelligent predators and I believe the very vast majority of adult male tigers faced by an adult male brown bear either to defend their own kill or to attempt a predation on him make the wise decision to live another day. Maybe occasionally the unexperienced bold individual would have a go on the boar, but if being able to survive the first close encounter, I tend to believe he would never dare to do it again. WaveRiders  Amnon242\ dateline='\'1422784064' Wrote: Amur tigers from zoo PragueNice photographs, 242. They again prove photographs can't be used to estimate the weight of captive big cats. They offer some insight in the relative proportions, but that's about it. I especially liked the alleged Caspian tiger. Amur tigers seem to be quite popular in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. More often than in other countries, The Czech media report on the size of captive male Amur tigers. My guess is there's someone who keeps track of all records. It's your job to find him, so ask around. Not all will appreciate the determination, but many won't mind to be bothered. When I was measuring skulls and captive big cats, biologists, keepers, directors and conservators had to get used to it. It didn't take 'm long, though. Some conservators ended up sitting next to me and assisting in some way. Measuring, keeping books and everything connected is something of the past. Nowadays, most biologists and zoologists measure skulls by using photographs. When they meet someone doing it the old way, though, many soon get a feel for it. I propose to give it a try. Good luck.
WAVERIDERS,
Interesting post. Must have taken some time. Before responding, I decided for a summary of the points you made. The summary not only allows for an overview of the essentials of the points you made. It also helps readability to an extent. One has to remember most visitors are not posters. I know many appreciate shortish and clear posts and clear responses. I agree, as it all comes down to a few points in the end. Here's the summary. A - SUMMARY OF THE POINTS MADE a - Length Your post relates to post 314. That post included a table on the size of Yellowstone male brown bears. The table was posted to get to information on the straight line length of male brown bears. This was done in order to be able to compare bears and tigers in head and body length 'between pegs'. Those who constructed the table distinguished between 'length' and 'contour' length. I wrote 'contour length' most probably was similar to the length 'over curves' in big cats, whereas 'length' could have been similar to head and body length 'between pegs' in big cats. You wrote 'length' in the brown bear table didn't correspond to 'head and body length between pegs' of big cats for two reasons. One was 'length' probably included the tail. Two is " ... it does not appear to be a straight line distance, but a curved distance probably not thoroughly matching any contour ... ". The result of both points is I allegedly overestimated " ... the straight line head and body measurements of brown bears in northeastern Siberia provided by the table you showed ... ". You finished your point saying " ... brown bears in the Russian Far East are reliable reported at much larger body size then that of any tiger ... ". 2 - Skull In post 314, I compared northeastern Siberia male brown bears with Cooch Behar male tigers. You wrote " ... Ursus arctos lasiotus, the brown bear subspecies living in Amur tiger range, is not only much heavier, but even a significantly larger subspecies then the form from northeastern Siberia. Apart from body weights ..., any study of the skull size ... show ... it is ... about the same size of the Kamsjatka form ... ". 3 - Weight and skull size You wrote adult male Amur tigers nowadays " ... weigh on average about 180 kg. on the basis of indisputable data of over 40 individuals ... ". The range you gave was 146-225 kg. Ussuri male brown bears average 270 kg., with large individuals tipping the scale at 320 kg. in normal conditions. You thought that even "... a big Amur male attempting to predate even just an average male brown bear is either foolish or desperate or both ... ". 4 - Body structure Although Amur tigers top Ussuri brown bears in upper canine length, bite force (at similar size), grappling ability, agility and speed, you wrote male brown bears " ... more than compensate these ... handicaps with ... a more solid, compact, powerful and more armoured body built at similar body mass ... and a more stable body (plantigrade) platform ... ". Apart from that, they have a longer reach, as effective claws and a cardiovascular system delivering more stamina. A tiger could ambush a bear, but you wrote this, as a result of an exceptionally well developed sense of smell, would be an unlikely scenario. 5 - The Tatibe River brown bear killed by a tigress in 1951 No differences of opinion in this department. The bear killed was either a subadult or young adult male or an adult female. As a result of a lack of age (and experience), the bear, in spite of its weight, was no match for the tigress. 6 - Conclusions Compared to adult male Amur tigers, adult Ussuri male brown bears: - are even shorter in head and body length than I stated (a); - have significantly longer skulls (b); - outweigh male Amur tigers by quite a margin ©, and - compensate handicaps by their robustness, reach and stamina (d). 7 - Male Amur tigers vs Ussuri male brown bears How to commit suicide: Lesson one.   *This image is copyright of its original author That's how the bears were measured from Yellowstone. Text says from tip of tail but the diagram shows moreso a body length. Even if tail was completely included, 3%-5% inflation of length should not be too catastrophic.  (02-02-2015, 08:49 PM)'peter' Wrote:(02-01-2015, 02:47 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote: I say it always - photos are misleading. For instance tiger Baikal (250kg). I saw him in persona and he is really very long - but the photo doesnt show it...i´d say... I doubt that there is someone who keeps track of all records. Perhaps I´m the only one in my country who has some kind of database like that :-) I sometimes ask the zoo breeders (by email or by persona) for the weights of tigers (and sometimes lions). The above mentioned weights come from these responses, not from media. Yes, sometimes the media refer about weights of tigers. Sometimes the zoos publish these information on their pages...but I would be surprised if it was different in germany, austria or other countries. Maybe it seems like that to you, because Im from czech and I search for these info and publish it here... Popularity of amur tigers in czech republic...well, I think that there is about 15 public zoos in czech and almost all have amur tigers. BTW Zoo Prague has amur, sumatran and malayan tigers. But I dont think that amur tiger is especially popular animal in the czech republic...i´d say that czech people would rather prefer the lion because it´s our national symbol...lions are everywhere (statues, flags, ice hockey clubs...even some idiotic f***ing neo-nazi group is called Czech Lions..or something like that...). I myself am most fascinated by amur tigers...I dont know why but I´d say it started in childhood when I saw amur tiger in a zoo. This tiger was extremely huge, much more than lions in next cage...so thats probably when I started to admire tigers, especially amurs. 
A super massive tiger canine, it has been worn down and now only measures about 8 cm, but it still weighs about 111 grams and has a diameter of 4 cm. That's much bigger than any other big cat canine i've seen, even more massive than the 6 inches subfossil.
That thing is super heavy, it is like a whale tooth. Peter, what is your opinion about this ?  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
B - ANSWERS
a - Bias In your lead-in, you announced you would try to get to a series of 'unbiased' remarks, but I took the liberty of adding a few pounds of salt and hope you don't mind. The reason is nearly everyone is preferenced to a degree. It's clear I'm more interested in tigers than in other big cats or bears and your first two posts, in my opinion, show a clear preference for bears and lions. I don't mind, as our forum has quite many posters interested in tigers. We could do with posters with a different approach for some more balance. Consider yourself most welcome. b - Length This is the table on American male grizzly bears again. They averaged 196,5 cm. 'over contours' and 164,3 cm. in 'length'. I assumed 'length' is the total length 'between pegs'. You didn't agree as the tail apparently was included. I agree on the tail, as there's no information on tails in the table.  *This image is copyright of its original author This is the table on male brown bears in north-eastern Siberia again:  *This image is copyright of its original author Body length, in this table, really is the length of head and body, as the length of the tail is given seperately. The length of head and body, as is usual in brown bears, most probably was measured 'over contours'. If not, the Siberians were giant weasels, so 'over contours' it is. How does their head and body length compare to male Amur tigers? We know male Amur tigers (animals of 36 months of age and over) taped 195 cm. 'between pegs'. As the male Siberian brown bears averaged 196,5 cm. 'over contours' and 164,3 cm. in 'length' (let's assume it was a straight line length), I assumed they more or less compared to their American relatives (160-165 cm. in a straight line). You didn't think the 'length' was measured in a straight line, but that it was " ... a curved distance probably not matching any contour ... ". An intriguing proposition, but you have to admit 'contour length' is right next to 'length', meaning it had to be something very different. My guess is it compares very much to a 'between pegs' measurement in big cats. As your last remark (" ... brown bears in the RFE are reliable reported at much larger body size then that of any tiger ... ") contradicts your remarks on 'length' (you concluded I overestimated the length of male brown bears), I propose to forget about it. The conclusion I got to is both American and Siberian male brown bears (at the level of averages) are shorter in head and body length measured in a straight line than male Amur tigers. One last remark on a measurement 'between pegs' in big cats. A big cat is measured in this way by measuring the distance between the tip of the nose and the tip of the last bone of the tail (hairs not included). The length of a big cat measured in a straight line, therefore, is the length 'as the crow flies' (the tape shouldn't touch the tiger). In brown bears, 'length' (not 'contour length') is measured in nearly the same way. Problem solved. c - Skull This is a well-known table on the skull of Ursus arctos piscator (left) and Ursus arctos beringianus (right). It seems that 'beringianus' includes Ursus arctos lasiotus. A bit confusing, as coastal brown bears, like those on Kodiak Island and, possibly, Sachalin, often have a clear 'stop' (elevated brow), whereas this feature is not seen in skulls of Ussuri brown bears ('lasiotus'). Anyway:  *This image is copyright of its original author How to read the table? Warsaw told me that -1- is greatest total skull length, whereas -2- is the condylobasal length. The table (of Baryshnikov, if I remember correctly) says 19 males of Ursus arctos beringianus (Ursus arctos lasiotus) averaged 377,03 mm. in condylobasal length and 407,84 mm. in greatest total skull length. Impressive by any standard. Now for male Amur tigers. I assume you are familiar with the table published by V. Mazak (1983, pp. 191)? Male tigers averaged 325,44 mm. in condylobasal length (n=9) and 367,10 mm. in greatest total length (n=8). A difference of 15,85% in condylobasal length and 11,10% in greatest total length (in big cats, the sagittal crest often is relatively long, hence the difference). I agree it is a significant difference, although not as pronounced as you announced. The main reason why brown bears have a longer skull, is a very long snout. Furthermore, we have to remember that Amur tigers have a (relatively) wider rostrum, longer and stronger (referring to the diameter at the insertion of the upper jaw) canines and more force at the tip of the canines. In a fight, a long snout and a deficit at the tip of the canines would be a distinct disadvantage. Undecided, I would conclude. d - Weight You wrote over 40 wild male Amur tigers averaged about 180 kg. (range 146-225), whereas male brown bears (according to Kucerenko) averaged 264 kg. (range 260-320). You then proceeded to the giant bears shot every now and then in the past. I propose to go to the essentials. Tigers first. In the Kerley-table published a few years ago, male Amur tigers averaged just over 170 kg. The table, however, included young adults and malnourished animals of 125 kg. and just over. What about a table which has healthy adults only, with 48 months and older for adults? We distinguish between age-classes in bears, so why not in tigers? Miquelle said adult males average 430 pounds (195 kg.). In Guate's table, the average was just over 420 pounds (190 kg.). The data I have suggest the average ranges between 420-430 pounds for a healthy adult male. The heaviest I know of was 212 kg. There could have been one of 473 pounds (214,5 kg.) weighed by Kerley, but I never saw a reliable report about the 225 kg. male you mentioned. Half a century ago, the situation was quite different in that adult male Amur tigers often exceeded the heaviest weighed today. Now for brown bears. We all know the Kucerenko-table (minimum 260 kg. - average 264 kg. and maximum 320 kg.) was suspect in that the minimum had to be incorrect. Same for his table on female brown bears. The average for females (189 kg.) was corrected by poster Alexious3. He said 140-150 kg., would be closer to the mark. Later, he was proved right: females average about 145 kg. My guess is the average for males could be quite a bit below the mark suggested in different tables (264 or 270 kg.). If we assume the average difference between males and females, as in Kucerenko, is 70-80 kg., the average for males could be 210-230 kg. My guess is it probably is a bit more, but I doubt if we would get to 264 or 270 kg. if young adults, malnourished 'problem' bears and old bears would be included. I propose to include the exceptions to the general rule in every table on male brown bears from now on. I mean, if you include male tigers of 3 years of age as well as malnourished animals and jump to conclusions from there, we should include young adult male bears, old ones and problem bears struggling to survive as well. I also think we should include the violent weight fluctuations resulting from fattening up and hibernation. The difference between autumn and spring weights can be quite astonishing in brown bears. If we do all that, a very different picture emerges. There are more reasons to doubt the average weight of male brown bears and one of these, like in Amur tigers, is a lack of data. There's not that much known, meaning chances are Kucerenko's table, in spite of the flaws mentioned, will remain important. My guess is it will change when the situation, datawise, changes. I recently found a bit more on the weight of male brown bears in Sichote-Alin. It was, in fact, straight from the lion's den, ehhh, the bear's den (the Shaggy God forum). Sarus recently posted an abstract of a study conducted in Sichote-Alin. A study on brown bears (Ursus arctos lasiotus) in Sichote-Alin. Three adult males monitored in the fall (when bears are heavier than in other parts of the year) were well below the assumed average for adult males belonging to Ursus arctos lasiotus (referring to the Kucerenko-table):  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Seryodkin was involved in the article recently written (Sarus posted a link to it). As Seryodkin was involved, Warsaw, who was a little bit disappointed, had to accept the records. To conclude. There's overwhelming evidence that Ursus arctos lasiotus is a large local type with a lot of impressive averages, though, in total length and chest circumference, not more impressive than those of male brown bears in northeast Siberia. Compared to them, however, they are decidedly heavier. Or are they? Bears show more individual variation than tigers, meaning there are both small and large animals. The differences between small and large also are more pronounced. And then there is hibernation, meaning weight fluctuations of 20-30% and even over. A male of 235 kg. in autumn could be 170-180 kg. in early spring. Very close to the Tatibe River bear killed by the tigress mentioned in Bromlej (1965). An average-sized male of 270 kg. in autumn could be close to 200-210 kg. in spring. Just suppose a male bear of this weight meets a male tiger with an excellent memory in his prime somewhere in April, when the tiger is well over 200 kg. A tiger like him:  *This image is copyright of its original author Or him:  *This image is copyright of its original author Or T-16:  *This image is copyright of its original author I'm not saying smallish or average-sized male brown bears are killed by large male Amur tigers in remote places at an alarming rate. I'm saying the information I have on brown bear weights doesn't quite add up. It could be 270 kg. and it could be, as in females, quite a bit less. When it is, as I think, well below 270 kg. and male tigers, as Miquelle said, average 195 kg., it would be easier to explain the lack of interaction between adult males. It would also be easier to explain the lack of evidence regarding displacement. e - Body structure At 160-165 cm. in a straight line without the tail and 1,25-1,50 kg. or even a bit over per cm. in length, adult male brown bears belonging to Ursus arctos lasiotus are taller, chestier and significantly heavier than adult male Amur tigers. They also have a significantly longer skull, which, in the posterior part in particular, is reinforced as well. I do not doubt adult male bears are suited for conflict, especially when it happens on two legs. The reason, apart from being plantigrade, is short distances between the different body parts and bulky departments with a lot of room for bones, organs, muscles and improvement over time. This is without stamina, of course. The ultimate candidate for victory in a bout with a big cat of similar weight? Male Amur tigers, at 195 cm. in head and body in a straight line and about 1 kg. per cm. in length (referring to males of 36 months and older), seem to be very close to male brown bears according to those who know. For weapon quality, most agree, they could compare. Amur tigers have the biggest fore-arms and paws of all big cats and they also are taller than most male brown bears. This advantage would enable them to strike downward and manouvre the bear in a position in which they are able to use their teeth first. Although bear skulls are made to withstand damage, tiger skulls are a platform for significantly longer upper canines. Close in most respect, I think. The difference then has to be in the distances and, perhaps, in the stamina. We can dismiss stamina, as there are plenty of reliable records of tigers involved in long bouts. They need breaks when they fight large animals, but they apparently are able to continue for a long time. That leaves short distances and plantigrade. Here's what I know about serious fights (based on what I saw myself and heard of those who saw a lot more): Although tigers do not lack in the plantigrade department, bears are naturals in this respect. There also is no question about absolute and relative strength in that bears top the list. That, however, doesn't mean tigers lack in these departments. They are strong enough to manouvre an opponent of similar size and weight in a position to strike first. It is about initiative and strike first and this is why agility, speed and aggression are very important. If one of the two is able to get to an essential part of the body with his teeth, the fight usually is quickly over, plantigrade or not. The real fight is when both are down and wrestling. Agility as I see it is the ability to get out of a dangerous position as fast as possible and get to a decisive advantage seconds later. It is about using the teeth and forcing your way in. Robustness, I think, isn't relevant when both are down and teeth come into play. The reason is it doesn't produce speed, but, at best, damage control. Important, but not when vital body parts are mauled or when your life is at stake. The fights between adult wild male tigers we saw in videos recently posted underline what I saw myself and heard from trainers. In a serious fight, the opponents often go down quickly and wrestle their way towards the best possible position to use the teeth. When they find a place to use them, they lock on for as long as they can. Bears are different in this respect in that they often are referred to a biters. Only experienced male bears know they have to hold on when they fight a big cat. The best chance of a bear is to strike when the tiger is taking a break. In this way, they use their advantage (robustness) in the best possible way. Although many favour the big cat in an all-out in similar-sized animals (referring to weight), it's nearly always very tight. There are no clear favorites. When we hear or read about bouts and decisions, the winner, in nearly all cases, had a significant advantage (size, age, gender and experience). One seldom hears about a winner in a fight between similar-sized animals. The reason is they know it can be deadly. Whether or not body structure is an advantage in a fight between animals of similar size and age, depends on the way the fight is conducted. You wrote real large male brown bears, apart from other large bears, have no enemies. I agree. But that doesn't mean this is a result of robustness or something related. It is a direct result of size and not something else, like robustness and short distances. When a 400-500 pound male bear fights a male tiger of similar weight, anything is possible. When the difference is over 30% or so, chances are there will be no prolonged fight. In wild Russia, contrary to what many think, male brown bears do not dominate male tigers in a fysical fight. Says Krechmar, and they don't come more experienced. He also said a large bear would get it his way more often than not. Of course he would: size is important and a tiger can hunt again. But it definitely is the exception to the rule. Krechmar's remarks, by the way, suggests there isn't much to choose in the weight department. One last remark on body structure and fights. Let's assume male Amur tigers average 420-430 pounds and male brown bears average 580-600 pounds. How do you explain the lack of interaction and no casualties in engagements? A result of tigers avoiding bears? If so, then why is it researchers, in over two decades, didn't find anything on male tigers consistently displaced by male brown bears? I mean, bears and food. Do I need to say more? My guess is it is too close to call, maybe as a result of smaller than assumed differences in weight and maybe as a result of other factors. Male tigers know and so do male brown bears. f - The Tatibe River bear killed by a tigress We agree in most respects, so there's no need for a debate. The point I tried to make, however, was that a tiger (or tigress in this case) apparently is able to kill a heavier bear. You thought it would make sense if the bear was young and therefore unexperienced. I agree and so would most others. But what if the bear really was well over 200 kg. before hibernation? And what to say if it was a small adult male or a large adult female? As Bromlej didn't offer any details and we want to stay clear of speculation, I propose to go to trainers. Brown bears are as strong as they come, they think. But they also saw bears, and males in particular, overplaying their hand at times. At their peril, they added. I talked to one of the most experienced and respected trainers (the adopted son of one of the Hagenbecks, who had been a trainer nearly all his life and later became director of a training facility). He had seen it all and said anything is possible in a fight. It usually goes with weight, age and gender, but he knew of plenty of exceptions. At times, a leopard can kill a larger big cat and a big cat can kill a larger bear. Bears also kill big cats, but most, if not all, of these were decidedly smaller. When I asked for details, he said polar bears had been killed by tigers in a one-on-one. Not immatures, he added. Happened more than once. I also read about it in Tiede's book. In the end, it depends. This is the opinion of most trainers and it is the opinion of many researchers in Russia. The only thing they seem to agree on is male Amur tigers do not hunt male Ussuri brown bears. My guess is they do not avoid each other, but I do think they avoid problems when they, at times, engage. Those that didn't (tigers and bears), were youngish, old, desperate or handicapped in some way. Very large male brown bears no doubt top the list, but it's a close call in the other weight divisions. g - To finish I talked about short and clear posts in my previous post, only to break the record moments later. I apologize. The reason is I wanted to asnwer all points made in a single post in order not to lose the overview. I succeeded, I think, but I can't deny it has become a very lengthy affair. Won't do it again. To make up for it, a photograph of captive polar bears to finish with. Warsaw always complained about the size of brown bears and polar bears in circuses. The old trainer I interviewed didn't agree with 'small'. Polar bears were his speciality. He said they were more wild at heart than brown bears and more dangerous than big cats, but also more preferenced. If they liked you, you could do nothing wrong. Males would defend you against other males. The bond he experienced was tighter than in all other animals. He told me about a book I should read. After his death, I found and bought it. It has many photographs of large polar bears in circuses. In the photograph below, the female trainer was a bit short. In spite of that, it shows polar bears in circuses were anything but small. Males of 500 kg. and well over were not rare, he said. I agree:  *This image is copyright of its original author
Holy crap, these guys are huge, and i love to see those huge bears regardless it is brown or polar.
That pic was saved. (02-03-2015, 02:58 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Holy craps, these guys are huge, and i love to see those huge bears regardless it is brown or polar. Tell us a bit more about the tiger canine you posted. The biggest upper canines I measured, at the insertion of the jaw, were just over 30,00 mm. in width (diameter, straight line measurement). I never extracted the upper canines in order to measure them from tip to tip because I didn't want to damage the skulls, some of which were very old. I measured upper canine length from the insertion in the upper jaw to the tip in a straight line. The longest belonged to captive male Amur tigers and most were just about 30,00 mm. or a bit over at the insertion in the upper jaw. In relatives, however, the upper canines in skulls of captive Indian male tigers were as robust or a trifle better. Although I saw more than one male lion skull with very robust upper canines, they usually lack a bit in this department. There are many differences between skulls of wild and captive big cats. I'm not yet done, but my guess is one of the most striking differences could be upper canine length and width. Although Amur tigers top the list in absolutes, Sunda tigers, and those from Sumatra in particular, seem to top the list for relatives.
Too bad, that canine was badly deformed and losing most of its part including the root and the crown, only 8 cm has been remained.
The thickest part of the canine is about 4 cm, and the remaining part still weighs about 5 or 6 times more than a full tiger canine of similar length. According to the proportion, the owner estimated the full canine should be around 18 cm. Maybe i should request Guate or Tigerluver to make a restoration image about that canine. (01-31-2015, 07:10 PM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Can anyone explain this in layman terms? I do not pretend to have a college education. Tigerluver found a way to predict the relation between chest girth and body mass in wild male tigers. This means he is able to predict body mass if he has the chest girth. The formula he has is increasingly accurate at a high level of abstraction. This means it gets more accurate as the number of observations rises. For example. Let's assume the formula predicts an adult male tiger with a chest girth of 125 cm. should produce about 200 kg. Also assume we have the measurements of 25 individual tigers. Suppose not one of these is 200 kg., as the formula predicts. The conclusion could be the formula is wanting at the level of individuals. When you, however, calculate the average of all tigers with an average chest girth of 125 cm., the outcome is 203 kg. Very close to the mark, that is. Therefore, at the level of all 25 tigers, the formula is accurate. In science, it is about the accuracy of predictions at a high level of abstraction. If your formula for, say, the best treatment of people suffering from a particular disease works at the level of all members of that particular group, it is sound. That, however, doesn't mean it works in all individual cases. And the other way round. What works for you, may prove to be wanting at the level of a group. Every individual is different, but at the level of a particular group distinct features shared by many will be visible. A formula that works for most members of a particular group is a good one. 
Not to turn this into a Tiger vs Bear thread, this is just in response to Waveriders assesment of a bears advantage over a Tiger.
While at weight parity it will most likely be a coin flip, I give the slightest advantage to a tiger or any big cat of equal size. While I agree a bear is more balanced and capable of wrestling that is not a deal sealer against a big cat. Like it was stated, big cats have better weapons and their claws are dangerous whether on there backs, standing on two or four legs. They can deliver bites from any position and you often seen them going to their sides or backs to deliver a throat bite. So being more stable if true would not neccessarly be an advantage. The other advantage I give to the Cat is this, they are hyper carnivores. They only eat meat, they learn multiple kill attacks and how to conserve or expell energy when a oppening presents it self. But its like splitting hairs, both are obviously capable of defeating the other and it has happened numerous times for both sides. Just my 2 cents, great info from everybody else, Interesting read.
Here is the pics.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
While most sperm whale tooth or orca tooth look like these, that's why it cannot pass as a whale tooth.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 10 Guest(s) |