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)
|
Hi peter,
I have extracted some major tiger specimen information for you from the AMNH archive, including Goodwin's three Ussuri tigers. If you need more information on tiger specimens, you can visit AMNH's database.  *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 The Vietnamese tiger with the catalog AMNH M 87349 is also very interesting. Although I haven't seen its skull measurements, I have seen its mandible measurements and it has very strong lower canine , which are even stouter than the lower canine of the male Amur tiger skull of the Boneclones that I measured.  *This image is copyright of its original author Its mandible size is very large, much larger than the holotype specimen of the Indochinese tiger (after all, the Indochinese tiger was named in 1968, and this tiger was captured a long time ago), comparable to the male Bengal tiger AMNH M 113744 I mentioned above. It may correspond to a very large individual in the Indochinese tiger 
Amur tiger hunts and kills a large adult male brown bear, estimated to weigh no less than 270 - 300 kg.
In his scientific paper 'Search of Prey and Tactic of Hunting of the Amur Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica)' zoologist Vitaly Zaitsev reports a confirmed account reported by the Chief foresters L.V. Kirsta and A.D. Saiko who observed a tiger persistently hunting down, chasing, and killing a male brown bear for over a distance of 500 meters. This account also confirms that Amur tigers have the stamina and endurance to chase a large male brown bear for over 500 meters, and then kill it. When I initially found and posted this account some years ago, I assumed that the male brown bear killed by the tiger was most likely a mature adult male brown bear (200 - 300+kg) and possibly a large male. Judging by the fact that the male brown bear was able to fight off the tiger's initial attack. Turns out, I was right. Here's the account: "In winter 1982, the reserve's chief foresters, L.V. Kirtsa and A.D. Saiko observed a tiger chasing a male brown bear for over 500 meters. Attacking the bear as it fled along the valley of the watershed terrace, and without killing it, the tiger would run to intercept the bear hundreds of meters away, from where it would make a new attack from ambush, trying to bite its neck. The tiger eventually managed to kill the male bear." https://www.researchgate.net/publication...is_altaica A person named "Beiremulen Handakuter" contacted the author / zoologist Vitaly Zaitsev, and asked him for specific details about the size and condition of the male brown bear hunted down and killed by the tiger, which was observed and reported by two very experienced chief foresters. The tiger killed this large adult male brown bear in the beginning of winter, when many (well-fed) brown bears are still roaming the taiga and accumulating fat for winter hibernation. As I proved in my previous posts, during the first snow-falls of early winter, many bears still roam the forest up to December 15. Vitaly Zaitsev confirmed the bear wasn't a "Schatun" (connecting-rod) brown bear. In this particular case, the tiger hunted and killed a large, well-fed adult male brown bear. The killed bear was found by the two chief foresters A.D. Saiko and L.V. Kirsta. Saiko, an experienced hunter, estimated the killed male brown bear to weigh no less than 270 - 300 kg! Saiko also noted that the bear was not a weakened, skinny bear, but was a large male brown bear of considerable weight. Zoologist Vitaly Zaitsev wrote: This is not a bear who does not hibernate (weakened by hunger, but its exact condition is not known; according to A.D. Saiko, it is not skinny). Killed by a tiger at the beginning of winter in the Kolumbeyskoye forestry of the Zapovednik on the western macroslope of the Sikhote-Alin ridge. At this time, the bears of the reserve usually hibernate. There are many brown bears in those places. Their route (Saiko and Kirsta) was long, for those places at least a week. Of course, they did not measure the weight of the bear. The reserve's security inspector, A.D. Saiko is also an experienced hunter. It is unlikely that he could have made a significant mistake in determining the bear's size "by eye". The weight of this bear, according to his estimate, reached 270 - 300 kg, no less. This is less than the largest sizes of Ussuri brown bears (up to 400 kg). But not small. Best regards Vitaly Z.  *This image is copyright of its original author In addition, the famous Russian biologist, scientist & ecologist, S.P. Kucherenko (who had over 50 years of field experience studying tigers and bears in the Ussuri taiga) has personally found the carcasses of large brown bears, weighing 200 - 300 kg, killed and eaten by tigers in multiple cases: Kucherenko: "Our numerous observations have also shown that an adult tiger eats a piglet of average fatness (about 30 kilograms) or half a two-year-old sow in one sitting. A tiger usually eats a red deer or a wild boar weighing 150-200 kilograms in a week. The animal (tiger) lives for 8-10 days near a large bear (weighing 200-300 kg) that has been crushed." "Of all animals, only a large brown bear can overcome it. And even then, the victims are usually young, not yet strong tigers or tiger cubs. Even a large bear will not take an adult tiger. On the contrary, I have come across large bears killed and eaten by a tiger. An average tiger is always stronger than an average bear." https://litresp.ru/chitat/ru/%D0%9A/kuch...bya-doma/6 Russian zoologist N.V. Rakov reported: "In December 1959, a tiger killed a large brown bear on the Svetloye River, and lived near it for about 10 days until it was eaten, after which it went south along the sea coast (A.E. Karavanov)." https://amur-tiger.ru/uploads/files/domy...075454.pdf And recently, in 2022, a medium-sized male tiger named "Odyr" hunted, killed in a fight, and ate a large adult male brown bear with a palm callus width of 18 cm. The killed bear was specifically noted to be of impressive size. All this was determined and confirmed by a team of seasoned wildlife rangers, the Chief forest inspector Yuri Kya and his team. Yuri Kya was even able to determine where the fight began (near the forest Index sign), which takes vast experience: After the tiger Odyr killed the large male brown bear, later, Odyr was spotted by Yuri Kya and his team, feeding on the bear carcass:  *This image is copyright of its original author https://www.province.ru/habarovsk/ekolog...logov.html Its an indisputable fact that Amur tigers, particularly experienced males, hunt and kill mature adult male brown bears. What's interesting, is that in most cases, tigers killed large male brown bears. We even have very recent footage (2024) captured by biologist, Feng Limin's drone camera of a young adult tigress pursuing a much larger adult male brown bear in Northeast China. And in that region, bears make up 10 percent of the tigers' diet year round. (Feng Limin, 2025). The accounts also confirm that even medium-sized male tigers can successfully hunt, fight, and kill a significantly larger (and heavier) adult male brown bear. As far as cases in which the gender of the killed adult brown bear was specified, I've actually seen more cases of tigers killing and eating adult male brown bears than cases of tigers killing adult female brown bears! Russian biologist E.N. Smirnov also followed the fresh tracks of a tiger that was steadfastly hunting down a large brown bear. Seasoned biologists V.G. Yudin and Yuri Dunishenko also reported that 'large bears' are hunted and killed by tigers. In the hunting grounds of a tiger, biologist Matyushkin found the carcass of an adult brown bear killed and eaten by a tiger. Unfortunately, he never specified the killed bear's gender, but its likely the bear could have been an adult male. It seems that some Amur tigers will even deliberately target non-hibernating adult male brown bears in early winter also, knowing that bears are well-fed and have gained weight. As Aramilev noted, tigers especially like to eat bears that have gained weight. This is a 'delicious' food for tigers. These cases of tigers hunting and killing large male brown bears just further confirm how limited and incomplete the data was published by the Siberian Tiger Project on Amur tiger-bear relations. Just like their weight samples and data, which are outdated, and also very limited and inconclusive. Larger male tigers are being seen, tracked and recorded in recent years, particularly in the Khabarovsk Krai and Northeast China, than what the STP biologists saw, tracked, or recorded in the Sikhote-Alin Nature Reserve in the Primorye region many years ago. In the Khabarovsk Krai and Northeast China, large male tigers with heel widths of 13 - 14 cm's, and weights up to 225 - 270 kg have been recorded in recent years. After reviewing reliable (and recent) cases and factual information reported by various biologists, zoologists, rangers, and experienced hunters from the 20th - 21st centuries, we now have a much clearer picture, and that is Amur tigers indeed hunt and kill large adult male brown bears. This is an undeniable and established fact. And its no surprise that such a seasoned biologist and major expert like Alexander Batalov is very adamant and certain that the male tiger 'Ochkarik' killed and completely devoured the huge male brown bear (most likely 350 - 420 kg) 'Chlamyda'.  (03-17-2025, 07:53 PM)return 80 Wrote: Hi peter, Many thanks again, Return! Using your instruction (referring to your PM), I was able to enter the database of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). My aim was to find additional information about the 46 tiger skulls in the dataset of 'The three-dimensional morphological effects of captivity' (Hartstone-Rose A; Selvey, H; Villari, JR; Atwell, M, and Schmidt, T - 2014). Most unfortunately, I only was able to find a bit more (referring to gender, status and subspecies) about 12 skulls: 14037 (P.t. sumatrae) - 45519 (P.t. amoyensis) - 54459 (P.t. tigris) - 54460 (P.t. tigris) - 85396 (P.t. altaica) - 113744 (P.t. tigris) - 201798 (P.t. corbetti) - 45520 (P.t. amoyensis) - 54458 (P.t. tigris) - 60771 (P.t. corbetti) - 85405 (P.t. altaica) - 113743 (P.t. tigris). My guess is something went wrong. Maybe you can find out what it was.
SKULLS OF TWO MALE JAVA TIGERS - VITAL STATISTICS
As you may remember (referring to my previous post), I asked our new member Return 80 if he would be able to help me find additional information about the 46 tiger skulls in the dataset of 'The three-dimensional morphological effects of captivity' (Hartstone-Rose, A, et al, 2014). In a PM, he said he will give it a try when he has a bit of time. In order to show my appreciation, I said I would post measurements of two skulls of male Java tigers. 1 - Skull 1428 This skull is a bit longer than average (GTL 332,20 mm and CBL 284,40 mm), relatively wide (232,60 mm) and quite elevated (161,00 mm) at the orbit. Compared to those of significantly longer skulls of wild male lion, the upper canines are relatively long (58,50 mm from the tip to the insertion in the upper skull measured in a straight line) and massive (270,00 mm at the insertion). The rostral width is 98,50 mm. In 2004, the skull was 1,860 kg:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Although the label didn't offer details, it's very likely the skull was acquired a long time. Judging from the sutures, the teeth and the well developed sagittal crest, the former owner of the skull was a mature male when he perished. Watch the narrow occiput (typical for P.t. sondaica) and the vaulted, massive face. Apart from size (skulls of wild Indian tigers often are larger and heavier) and the occiput (the tip of the occiput is wider and a bit lifted in wild male Indian tigers), skulls of Javan and Indian tiger compare in many respects. As a result of the vaulted 'face', skulls wild wild males of both subspecies are relatively elevated at the orbit. 2 - Skull 13542 This skull also is a bit longer (GTL 333,60 mm) and wider (232,80 mm) than average and quite elevated at the orbit (158,00 mm). Compared to the previous skull, the upper canines are a bit longer (60,00 mm from the tip to the insertion in the skull) and almost as massive (diameter 26,50 mm at the insertion). In rostral width (98,80 mm) and weight (1,860 kg), both skulls also compare. The skull, from Sinagar, was acquired in 1892. As the tip of the (well developed) sagittal crest was damaged, the actual greatest total length might have been about 340,00 mm. Most unfortunately, I wasn't able to measure the condylobasal length. The mandible, as in the previous skull, is slightly concave:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author The sutures suggest the former owner of this skull, although fully adult, might have been a bit younger than the former owner of the previous skull. 3 - Differences between skulls of wild male tigers from Sumatra and Java Compared to skulls of wild male Java tigers, skulls of wild male Sumatran tigers show more variation. The profile usually is a bit flatter. In greatest total length, skulls of adult males range between 228,00-350,00 mm. Skulls of wild male Java tigers are much more uniform in this respect. The mandible in many skulls from Sumatra is quite straight and not, as in many skulls from Java, concave. The 'face' of many wild male Sumatran tigers is relatively long. The muzzle is quite straight and not, as in skulls of wild male Java tigers, widening towards the canines. When going over the photographs of all skulls I measured, it really seems as if Sumatra was a kind of crossroads in the recent past. This apparently was not the case in Java. 4 - Difference between young and mature adults There are many skulls of Sumatran and Javan tigers in Dutch natural history museums. The large number of skulls enabled me to get to a few conclusions over time. As a result of the additional information (referring to labels), I was able to distinguish between skulls of young and mature adults. In greatest total length, the difference was significant. 5 - Location Both skulls were part of the collection of the former Zoological Museum of the University of Amsterdam (ZMA). As you may remember, it merged with Naturalis (in Leiden) some time ago. The skulls discussed in this post were measured in 2004. The photographs are from a friend. Both skulls, to be complete, are from wild male tigers.
Hi Peter,
Thank you very much for your post! Although time was not sufficient, I still took some time in my leisure time to help you organize the information about the tiger skull. I found almost all numbered tiger skull information in the databases of AMNH and USNM (except for 140450). There are a total of 35 skulls, 24 of which have clear subspecies information. Due to time constraints, I only recorded their subspecies, the time of acquisition, the location of wild individuals, and the approximate skull size (such as greatest skull length). The two largest tiger skulls in captivity (GSL 379.9 and GSL 383.9) are unnumbered skulls, which may have come from the Carolina Tiger Rescue Center. Based on their P4 size, I think it is more likely that they are captive Amur tigers (of course, this is just my speculation based on morphological data). Some individuals in the database have body measurement data and weight data. However, as they were obtained at different times and collected by different collectors, their measurement methods may also differ. I have compiled four lists of skull specimen information for you to review. Some of the information was obtained through my personal communication.  *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
About two years ago (2023), I obtained a skeletal scan model of a Sumatran tiger and attempted to reconstruct a specimen of Panthera tigris soloensis(NM 9554，381mm+ humerus) based on this model.
 *This image is copyright of its original author This is a low-quality model reconstruction created based on CT scan models and anatomical images of some feline species. Unfortunately, it seems that I can't find this model now. According to the image records left at that time，After enlarging the Sumatran tiger model to the same size as the Ngandong tiger, the main reconstructed body data is as follows: Shoulder height when standing:ca.1100mm Total length(Over Cruves,tip of nose to the distal end of tail vertebra,along the midline of the body): 3300mm Head-Body length(Over cruves):ca.2290mm Chest circumference behind the shoulders:ca.1520mm Hind foot length 1 :ca.415mm Hind foot length 2(Measure the length of the straight line from the tip of the hind paw to the end of calcaneus on the skeleton):395mm Body volume:0.289 m³  *This image is copyright of its original author The volume is calculated by the software 3D printing plugin. Considering the differences in model quality(After all, this is just a simple model) and skin quality (for example, in<Der tiger>, Mazák mentioned that the skin of a large tiger can weigh more than 20kg, and the skins of multiple dissected Amur tigers are also 10kg+), I estimate that the actual weight is approximately 290-300kg at a state when the stomach is not significantly protruding. It's forelimb length (humerus+radius+third metacarpal ) is 840.4mm, which is 29mm longer than the forelimb length of the highest Amur tiger (CN5697) in the PER CHRISTIANSEN sample (although the latter's shoulder height is recorded as 120cm, which may be due to differences in measurement methods). Of course, these data are only based on the reconstruction of an island tiger skeleton sample and may not necessarily represent the true body size of the Ngandong tiger. My purpose of posting the data is to use them as a reference for some tiger body measurement data. For example, in<Der Tiger>, Mazák mentioned a very large captive Amur tiger with a shoulder height of 110cm and a total length of 320cm. Its body measurements are almost identical to this model.Mazák estimated its weight to be 280-300kg,this estimation is also very suitable
RETURN 80
Before turning to your last post (2,813), I want to briefly discuss a few issues you raised in two of our previous posts. In order to prevent problems, I'll do it in a chronological order. 1 - The mandibula of skull M 87349 in post 2,808 This skull in the collection of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), also mentioned in your last post (2,812), is from a wild male tiger from Djiring, Annam (now Vietnam). You wrote it's larger and more robust than the mandibula of the holotype of the subspecies (P.t. corbetti) and almost compared to the large mandibula of skull 113744 in the collection of the AMNH. Skull 113744 is from a wild male tiger from Chunakahn (United Provinces of the former British India). It has a greatest total length of 353,50 mm and a zygomatic width of 242,10 mm, meaning it's a bit longer and wider than an average skull of an adult wild male Indian tiger (P.t. tigris). Based on the information available, it's safe to say the Indian tiger, at the level of averages, is a bit larger than the Indochinese tiger. That, of course, doesn't mean this is the case in all of southeast Asia. Indochina, after all, is a very large region that has distinct sub-regions. The differences between them are considerable. This, as a result of the sheer size of the subcontinent, also is the case for India. All of that still is without individual variation (significant in tigers) and the effect of hunting. Some years ago, I compared the size of tigers in northern India and Nepal. In districts were hunting was not allowed, male tigers were about 4 inches longer (referring to total length measured 'over curves') than in districts were they were hunted all year round. A century ago, most parts of the former French Indochina were difficult to reach. I'm not saying hunters never visited Tonkin and Cambodia (they did), but it's difficult to find even a single report in a magazin. In the first decades of the previous century, most (American) hunters visited Annam. It was easy to reach and tigers in Annam were as large as those in British India. At least, that was the opinion of those who hunted in both regions. I'm preparing a post about (the size of) tigers in Indochina. For now, it's perhaps best to conclude there were (and are) significant regional differences in size. In some sub-regions, tigers seemed to be as large as anywhere. In others, they were hardly larger, if at all, than Sumatran tigers. 2 - The information in post 2,812 The overview you posted is very helpful! Many thanks. My aim is to use the skulls of wild tigers in particular. The main reason is labels have detailed information (subspecies, gender and year of acquisition). Another is you never know in captive tigers (referring to crossbreeds). I saw quite a few skulls of alleged 'Indian' tigers, but most labels were not informative, if not completely empty. One has to remember, as you said, many skulls of 'Indian' tigers in natural history museums were collected in the days of 'British India', which was quite a bit larger than India today. This means skulls of tigers shot in what's Myanmar today (the former 'Burma') were classified as Panthera tigris tigris. Same for skulls of tigers shot in the southern tip of southeast Asia (Malaysia) and many other parts of Indochina. Panthera tigris corbetti (the Indochinese tiger), furthermore, was 'created' (by V. Mazak) in 1968 only. This means many labels in natural history museums have to be revised. A few maps will result in a bit of overview regarding Indochina and British India. Here's a map of southern Asia in 1890:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's a nice map of British India in 1893. The southernmost tip of Malaya (today's Malaysia - see above) is not on the map. Not a result of politics, but scaling:  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - Panthera tigris soloensis (referring to post 2,813) A very nice attempt to get to a kind of reconstruction, Return. My guess is members interested in prehistoric big cats are starting to get interested. In the days I often visited natural history museums, I met with quite a few biologists interested in Late Pleistocene (cave) lions. They often invited me to measure the skulls they collected over the years (referring to today's lions and tigers). Most of them told me they invested a lot of time in digging. Every now and then, caves in southern, central and, in particular, eastern Europe produce bones of Late Pleistocene herbivores, cave bears and cave lions. I saw parts of mandibulas and bones and was amazed at the size cave lions reached. When talking about these cats, it quickly became clear those interested in them were heavily involved in measurements and scaling of some kind. According to them, the largest big cats today (I'm referring to male big cats exceeding 200 cm in HB measured 'between pegs' and 270 kg in weight) approach the size of an average male cave lion about 20,000-30,000 years ago. The size of European cave lions, of course, depended on the region. The bones they found, however, suggest some individuals well exceeded 220 cm in HB (measured in a straight line) and 350 kg. The famous Siegdorf lion was about similar in size to P.t. soloensis. It is, however, likely, some individuals of P.t. soloensis compared to large cave lions. According to our mod 'Tigerluver', who's very interested in prehistoric big cats, Sunda tigers, compared to tigers in western and northeastern Asia, have (relatively) larger skulls and teeth, suggesting they kept some of the information collected in that period. This could have been the case in (the skulls of) Javan tigers in particular, because they were more or less isolated for many thousands of years. 4 - Panthera tigris sondaica The skull below is from a biologist who saw it at a local market some decades ago. He bought it for very little money. Back then, there were many skulls of Sumatran and Javan tigers in natural history museums. Not a few were sold at local markets. The reason for the abundance was many people returned to the Netherlands when Indonesia became independent. Many of them brought memories from a period that, they were sure, would never come back. Over here, they felt out of place and time. Quite a few moved to the neighbourhood where I lived. I got along with many of them and saw lots of skins and skulls when I was growing up. Every skull and skin had a story. When they noticed I was interested, they told me about others they considered as experienced. I visited some of them over the years. One of them was a man who lived in a small city near the German border. He wrote 'Wilde katten' ('Wild cats'). I don't know when it was published, but the author (H.L. Blonk) finished his foreword in 1963. The book, as far as I know, wasn't translated. He gave it to me when I left. When he was working on it in the early sixties of the previous century, Blonk wrote to, or visited, many biologists and zoologists I would describe as 'very informed'. I'm referring to, for instance, dr. Th. Halthenordt (München, Germany), H. Hemmer (Mainz, Germany), dr. A. Husson (Leiden, the Netherlands), dr. H. Petsch (Halle, Germany), dr. I. Weigel (München, Germany) and dr. Z. Veselovsky (Prague, Czech Republic). H.L. Blonk was the first on my list. The second was Hoogerwerf, who photographed some of the last Javan tigers. Most unfortunately, he passed a few weeks before we were to meet. A great pity. I'll post the measurements of the skull he found in eastern Java (in 1938) in a future post. It's the largest I know of. Anyhow. The skull in this paragraph is not in a natural history museum. In this respect, it's unique. It was in great condition when I visited the man who bought it:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author The skull is quite long (GTL 331,50 mm, CBL 283,0 mm), wide (ZW 238,00 mm) and robust (ROS 97,00 mm). The teeth show it was a wild tiger. The upper canines are massive (29,60 and 29,70 mm at the insertion) and long (64,00 mm). Same for the Pm4 (35,90 and 36,40 mm). The skull, although completely cleaned, is heavy (1,792 kg). Height at the orbit 151,00 mm. 5 - Skull 13542 This skull, discussed in my previous post, is from Sinagar, Preanger (western Java). The photograph below of a plantation in Sinagar was taken in 1892 as well:  *This image is copyright of its original author Old maps show Sinagar was located in a hilly and forested part of south-central Java. The elevation (550-600 m above sea level) made it attractive for the Dutch.
Hi Peter
These are very interesting topics 1.About Tiger skull in British India A few years ago, I also read an article discussing this issue(Matti T. Heino et al.2019).They mentioned a very large tiger skull in their main text,the UN2484,with GSL 370mm.The time, and location of this specimen are 1900 and"India".However, their classification of specific base pairs indicates that this huge skull belongs to the same haplotype as the Malayan tiger.  *This image is copyright of its original author 2. Panthera spelaea
Cave lions are indeed a very attractive extinct species, with interesting biological features besides their enormous size.I have found from literature and some private specimens that the limb bones of cave lions are generally robust. Even compared to the giant Ngandong tiger specimen described by Koenigswald, some cave lion specimens that approximate length are significantly more robust.  *This image is copyright of its original author The private specimens of Chinese cave lions are similar in size to European cave lions from the Late Pleistocene.With an average humeral length that can reach the length of the Amur tiger CN5697 (372.5mm) - Ngandong tiger (381mm+) I mentioned above, but they are more robust.  *This image is copyright of its original author The robust features of cave lions do not seem to be entirely determined by their enormous size. Boule was the first to scientifically describe the differences between lions and tigers in his important publication in 1906. In addition, he also introduced a very small cave lion skeleton from Vence, with a GSL of only 354mm. its size is also comparable to average extant male East African lion,but the skeleton is much stouter than the extant lions and tigers(Boule, M.,1906. Les grands chats des cavernes. Annales de Paléontologie Tome 1). Reconstruction attempt using 3D modeling
In Boule's publications, he mentioned another Cajarc cave lion skeleton that is larger than the Vence cave lion, and its size is almost identical to that of the Siegsdorf cave lion. This skeleton is currently on display in the showcase on the right side of the Smilodon Populator skeleton at the Natural History Museum in Paris.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author A few months ago, I simply reconstructed this specimen based on the scanning model provided by netizens. Its curved Head body length is ca.2100mm(ca.1960mm straight line) and volume is 0.26 m³(Weighing approximately 260kg in a body that is not obese or excessively thin).  *This image is copyright of its original author Its size seems to be comparable to the famous Sauraha male, perhaps with slightly higher shoulders. As you said, The average size of Late Pleistocene European cave lions can be compared to individual giant extant tigers and lions Another interesting biological feature of cave lions is their enormous cranial cavity. According to some research data (Merriam and Stock 1932, Andrew R Cuff et al. 2016), P. atrox's cranial volume is almost equivalent to that of tigers at the same GSL(LACMP23-555,GSL ca.365mm,cranial volume 323cm³;LACMHC 2900-16,GSL 368.9mm,cranial volume 319cm³) which is different from the current members of the African Panthera genus clade. Although there is not much data on P. spelaea, their skull shapes are very similar, and compared to extant lions, their skulls are much elevated.For example, MVZ117849,the giant Kruger lion skull I mentioned before.I compared it with Azé' ancient cave lion(late middle pleistocene). Their skull lengths are very similar (407.1 vs 417.4), and their braincase width are almost the same.But the neurocranium of Azé is significantly higher.  *This image is copyright of its original author The height of MVZ117849 at the orbit is 180mm.Not long ago, I measured a replica of a private cave lion skull belonging to a German collector. This is a relatively young individual with a skull size slightly smaller than MVZ 117849, but its skull height reached 187.5mm,Higher than the larger Kruger lion. 3.Java tiger's canine
The canine size of the Javan tiger seems to be quite huge, especially for some large male individuals. According to the measurement data from Nobuyuki Yamaguchi et al, the canine of male Caspian and Javan tigers are almost the same size, and even some extra large individuals on the Antero-posterior diameter are even larger.  *This image is copyright of its original author Pocock also lists relevant data(The Canine is measured from front to back close to the socket.)，Even including the 15 inch skull from Darjeeling, the largest Bengal tiger canine Antero-posterior diameter at alveolus is 29mm-30mm, almost equivalent to the Javan tiger. (03-24-2025, 04:56 AM)peter Wrote: SKULLS OF TWO MALE JAVA TIGERS - VITAL STATISTICS (03-29-2025, 04:11 PM)return 80 Wrote: Hi Peter This is a supplement to the last post.Although I think this content may be more suitable to be discussed in the cave lion post. Although P. atrox/spelaea seems to have a relative large brain size, this morphology should be the result of long-term evolution. The Mauer specimen,one of the earliest Panthera fossilis skulls in Europe.Its GSL has reached an astonishing 442mm(or 431mm ?).The right is a late Pleistocene cave lion skull from Gailenreuth (Bavaria, Germany), the type locality of cave lions.Its GSL only 397mm,significantly smaller than the Mauer specimen.  *This image is copyright of its original author However,the POB of Mauer specimen only 69mm,the Gailenreuth specimen is 77mm.Compared to the cave lions of late Pleistocene Europe, Mauer's temporal region is significantly narrower.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Here is a new documentary uploaded on January 9, 2025 about why Amur tigers are regularly coming into conflict with people. The documentary also features biologists Sergey Kolchin and Alexander Batalov.
Kolchin explains the devastating effect that logging is making on the forest, and why this badly effects the tigers. Kolchin says that loggers have now reached the very upper reaches of the river, where the last untouched forests remain, and how they are ruthlessly cutting down the remaining pine forests. Loggers are regularly cutting down mature, healthy oak trees, the kind that produce the most acorns, as well as linden, ash, and birch trees. These are the trees with the highest commercial demand right now, and will most likely end up in China as round timber, he mentions. Kolchin says that the habitat has significantly reduced and can no longer support the current tiger population, that's why tigers are increasingly entering villages and killing livestock and dogs, and sometimes even attack humans. Kolchin is afraid that the tiger population will soon take a critical drop. Sadly, Kolchin mentions that Amur tigers may suffer the same fate as the Caspian tigers because a similar pattern was observed before they went extinct. According to Sergey Kolchin, the Ussuri taiga is dying due to intensive logging. Tigers are leaving. What is happening to rare predators in the Far East. "For the fourth winter in a row, tigers have been coming out en masse to Russian villages in the Far East. They kill dogs and cattle, and sometimes even come into conflict with people. The predators have already been seen in dozens of settlements in the Khabarovsk and Primorsky regions. What brings tigers to villages and why do those who have suffered from the predators say that people themselves are to blame for what is happening? A documentary from the scene." Conclusion: All in all, the documentary, like many others, perfectly demonstrates and proves why humans are such a invasive parasite on this planet. The absolute worst and most vile of creatures.
RETURN 80
Great info about the (skulls and bones of) Middle and Late Pleistocene lions! Much appreciated. I saw some of the bones found in northwestern Europe and the North Sea. Although the last lions in this part of Europe were smaller than their relatives in central, southern, eastern Europe and, in particular, Russia, they were still big. Late Pleistocene lions not only were very large, but, in particular, massive. I'm not sure, but my guess is Late Pleistocene lions and their recent relatives might have co-existed for some time. I'm not only referring to Africa. Late Pleistocene cave lions in the Russian Far East, although also smaller than their relatives in western Russia, severely outsized the local tigers. These tigers, as you said, represented the first wave and, sizewise, more or less compared to their recent relatives. Meaning they were not small by any standard. Some years ago, in this thread, I discussed an article about skulls and bones found in a number of caves in Primorye (Russian Far East). I made a summary (9 pages) and wonder if this is the moment to repost it one more time. Barsyshnikov's findings, after all, were interesting. Let me know what you think. The question is where to do it. We could decide for a few interesting detours, but the aim of this thread is to discuss the life and times of today's wild tigers. They really can use the attention. Before continuing with their prehistoric relatives, however, I want to discuss (the size of) Indochinese tigers. You referred to a few large skulls in some of your last posts. I think it would be an interesting topic, because of the lack of information. V. Mazak wrote about the size of Indochinese tigers in 'Der Tiger' (1983), but he, as far as I know, was the only zoologist who did. His collegue, J.H. Mazak, also published an interesting study, but he focused on skulls. Meaning we could do with a bit more. I found a number of interesting letters and articles published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS) and bought a few books. Not one of them was written by a zoologist, but information collected by hunters still beats assumptions only. I'll need a few days to finish the post about Indochinese tigers, as it will be a long one. If you find a bit more about tiger skulls that could be of interest, feel free to inform us. I'm in particular interested in the way today's zoologists and paleotologists measure skulls from photographs. As I said before, I measured most skulls in natural history museums. I had them in my hands, saw them from all angles and discussed them with biologists and curators. Not seldom, I asked them to measure some of the skulls I had measured. In the great majority of cases, the results were very similar. Differences in, for instance, the greatest total length ranged between 1-4 mm, and 4 mm was quite the exception. Not a few of the skulls I measured were also measured by others (referring to the datasets of a number of recent publications). They used photographs to measure them and the results were different every time, especially in greatest total length, condylobasal length and the width of the rostrum. I'm not saying the differences were significant, but they were remarkable at times. Same for the skulls in the dataset of the publication mentioned before ('Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between the skulls of tigers from mainland Asia', Cooper DM et al, 2022). I know you discussed this method before, but I wouldn't mind to read a bit more. The main question is why the length between two fixed points differs as much as it does. It is quite remarkable if we add the distance between both points is measured in a straight line with a reliable instrument. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 10 Guest(s) |