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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 (04-22-2014, 11:21 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Yeah, I am pretty sure of that now. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img] Then the Amurs during their prime era must be ranked along with the largest Panthera cat ever existed. (04-22-2014, 10:37 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Great info. Look at the assam head to body length ratio. Yep, their face proportion reminds me of those giant Pleistocene lion-like cats. It looks even longer than those captive Amurs with 17 inches skull. 
Interesting information, Guate. I have a lot more to add on skulls and body dimensions, but will do so when the time has come. For now, I'd like to stick to China and work to other local types from here.
Before I do, I will answer a question which was raised recently (referring to a debate between you and Grizzly in another thread). It's about the way I measure canines. With the exception of three sedated adult male lions, I didn't measure canines of living big cats. I measured canines in skulls. The length of the canine is the length from the insertion to the tip in a straight line. In order to do this correctly, I first make sure the canine is in is right place (canines tend to fall out of their socket). When done, I place one tip of the scale at the insertion and and another at the tip. I measure canines sideways. This allows me to measure the length of the canines in a straight line and not, like V. Mazak did (referring to the 383,00 mm. Amur tiger skull he measured in Berlin), over the outer curve. Canines in tiger skulls often are, both absolutely as well as relatively, longer and more developed (thicker at the insertion) than canines in skulls of other big cats. It often shows directly. Here are two photographs I recently posted in another thread: Adult wild male lion (greatest skull length 384,55 mm. - weight 1,840 kg. uncleaned - canines 63,30 and 62,60 mm.). This lion had quite long canines, but the length of the skull is such that they seem relatively short:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is the skull of an adult captive male Amur tiger (greatest length 368,60 mm. - weight 2,1120 kg. uncleaned - canines 71,90 and 70,80 mm.). Although shorter than the lion skull, the tiger skull is more elevated at the orbit. In this case, the canines look enormous:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is typical for most lion and tiger skulls. Although there is a lot of variation, it's safe to state that lion skulls, although longer, are caninewise not as well developed as tiger skulls. Many tiger skulls, and those of Sumatran and Amur tigers in particular, seem very functional platforms for the canines. In skulls of wild tigers, this is even more clear than in captive skulls. Anyhow. Here's a book a friend in the US recently bought at my request. One of the best I saw and only $ 11,00 (shipping was $ 4,00 more). Every dime will be used for research in Russia. My advice is to buy it now:  *This image is copyright of its original author
So the giant lion with 6.7cm canines was measured from the skull, not from the gumline.
But the giant Amur male from the Duisburg Zoo was measured in both gumline and straight line. Then what is the largest canine record for lion from the gumline?  (04-23-2014, 11:57 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: So the giant lion with 6.7cm canines was measured from the skull, not from the gumline.The largest canine record for a wild lion, measured from the gum line, is of 5.8 cm and is from a male (Amboga) in Amboseli, East Africa. (04-24-2014, 12:02 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:(04-23-2014, 11:57 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: So the giant lion with 6.7cm canines was measured from the skull, not from the gumline.The largest canine record for a wild lion, measured from the gum line, is of 5.8 cm and is from a male (Amboga) in Amboseli, East Africa. Then the record for the captive lions should be the giant 295kg male cited by Christiansen, it was 6.1cm from the gumline. But the 6.7cm canines from the skull should be somewhat similar to this one. According to peter, those giant lions don't have very large skull, but their skulls are way heavier than other longer lion skulls. (04-24-2014, 12:02 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:(04-23-2014, 11:57 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: So the giant lion with 6.7cm canines was measured from the skull, not from the gumline.The largest canine record for a wild lion, measured from the gum line, is of 5.8 cm and is from a male (Amboga) in Amboseli, East Africa. This pic shows how it works for the gumline and for the skull.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Where do you get the lion of 295 kg? [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img] The heaviest lion used by Dr Christiansen is of 204 kg.
(04-24-2014, 12:41 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Where do you get the lion of 295 kg? [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img] The heaviest lion used by Dr Christiansen is of 204 kg. Didn't he cite a 295kg captive male lion in one of his early papers about the bending strength of the canine tooth? I may be wrong though.
This captive lion (294.6 kg) came from the document of Dr Stephen Wroe of 2005.
However, I have my doubts about it, as in other documents he quoted another captive lion what a calculated weight of 267 kg, but at the end, the calculation was incorrect that the real weight was probably much lower. Just a correction, the heaviest lion used by Dr Christiansen is of 203 kg, not 204 kg. Here is the data about that lion of 267 kg: Fake lion of 267 kg from Asad Did someone remember how many times the idiot of Asad quotes the lion of 267 kg from Wroe??? Well, check this out: From Mushiya: “As much as I hate to burst your bubble, it should be pointed out that the 267kg lion in your list was not in existence. The weight figure you quoted, if I got it right, is from McHenry et al.’s paper "Supermodeled sabercat ...", for which the Supporting Information can be viewed here: Table 1. Skull measurements and body mass estimates for the specimens used in this study
Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16010/suppl/DC1 As detailed in Table 1 and SI Text, an estimated body weight of 267kg for P. leo AM M1579 is derived from the actual body weight of 170kg for P. leo CN6043 based on an allometric relationship between body weight and skull length in the species. However, a glaring error is committed by the authors - they confuse basal skull length (BSL, measured from premaxillae to occipital condyles) with total skull length (TSL, measured from premaxilla to lamboid) for P. leo CN6043, which means that 325mm should have been the lion`s basal skull length instead of its total skull length and hence an overestimated body mass for P. leo AM M1579 although it is described by Wroe as a "[i]particularly large" specimen.[/i] Actual body weights and cranial measurements for CN6043 and CN7321 (as given below) are listed in Table 5 of Christiansen and Adolfssen`s article "Osteology and ecology of Megantereon cultridens SE311...", where skull length is specified as "length of skull from premaxilla to the occipital condyles". Panthera leo CN6043 BSL 325.0mm BM 170kg Panthera leo CN7321 BSL 359.7mm BM 203kg By comparison, P. leo AM M1579 has a BSL at 332mm, indicating a skull size somewhat larger than that of CN6043 but quite a bit smaller than that of CN7321. Thus, its actual body mass could be somewhere between 170 and 203kg, and may have been much closer to the bottom end than the top end thereof. As a result, McHenry et al.`s weight estimate of 267kg for P. leo AM M1579 was clearly wrong. Instead, a weight of 180-190kg would seem more realistic. In addition to what has been mentioned above, here is another perfect example showing the relationship between actual body size and skull length in P. leo. “A technique used to measure the large African predators” http://www.wildliferanching.com/content/...-predators "The ratio of the width of the skull [i.e. a straight line between the zygions (most outer points of the zygomatic arches)] to the length of the skull [i.e. a straight line from the bases of the incisors (prosthion, most anterior point of the skull) to the inion (most posterior point of the skull)] of the five specimens was calculated from the data in Table I, namely: 1:1.55, 1:1.51, 1:1.53, 1:1.11 and 1:1.38." An adult male lion(ALPRU00047) weighing 177.5kg has a skull length of 376mm, just 2mm shorter than that of AM M1579 which is measured at 378mm. I would be surprised if you should tell me there was someone with a modicum of knowledge about big cat anatomy who believed that a negligible 2mm difference in total skull length could lead to a huge 89.5kg difference in body weight for lions. Hope it helps. ====================================================================================================================== I posted this before here: http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/8/Eve...1g9WVcXK8w So, just like the lion of 267 kg, I think that the one of 295 kg is probably another miscalculation and certainly just an exaggeration.
The explanation is plausible here, except those fat captive specimens, a 280kg captive lion in shape is considered to be an absolute giant.
To me, the captive lions max out about 280-300kg in the good physical shape, while those 300kg+ ones are clearly the fat specimens, unlike the giant captive tigers.
WINTER ECOLOGY OF THE AMUR TIGER (A.G. Yudakov, I.G. Nicolaev - first edition 1987, second edition 2012)
 *This image is copyright of its original author INTRODUCTION Tigers feature in many books. Most of these were written by hunters, who wrote about the hunt on one particular animal. Some books were written by naturalists. These books had a bit of overview, but most writers had zero or very limited personal experience. The number of monographs written by biologists with a lot of experience is very limited. In 1969, A.G. Yudakov and I.G. Nikolaev were asked to conduct a survey of the Amur tiger in the Primorski Krai. In the summer of that year, they drove around a significant portion of Primorski Krai on a motorcycle. In the following winter, they selected routes to perform more intensive surveys. These routes became the center of a thorough study of tigers in the following three (...) winters. The monograph that followed their study was published many years later. The reason is A.G. Yudakov died in a freak accident shortly after the study was concluded. His field notes were in (a kind of) shorthand and the question was who would be able to tranform his notes into an article or book. Nikolaev did what had to be done, but it took a lot of time. When the monograph was finally published in 1987, it didn't reach those unable to read Russian. A great pity, as Miquelle himself (in his foreword), when he went to Russia in 1992, wrote he was " ... startled to realize the breadth and depth of work that had been accumulated by Sovjet ecologists and biologists ... " (pp. 3). Miquelle spent many days with Igor Nikolaev in the field. He slowly came to learn this man really 'knew' tigers. The reason is he had spent a lot of time tracking tigers: " ... I learned over time that one of the fundamental differences today between western and Russian ... biologists is that Russians are still willing to earn their data the hard way through long, intensive field investigations. There is still a strong emphasis on natural history studies there, with the belief that knowledge comes with time in the field observing your subject and the environment it inhabits, a concept being lost in the western world of wildlife biology where statistics and models are replacing field-based knowledge ... " (pp. 4). How much encouragement to read this monograph, only the second on the Amur tiger, do you need? Anything to add? Yes. This monography was earned the hard way and it oozes through the words and tables all the time. Every word is a result of first-hand experience. The experience of two able and dedicated men who knew everything you would want to know about wild Amur tigers. The English translation is a treat you will not forget. Remember every dime is going to wild Amur tigers and those who study and protect them. I will add more when I've finished the book. Won't take long.
The Ecology of the Amur Tiger based on Long-Term Winter Observations in 1970-1973 in the Western Sector of the Central Sikhote-Alin Mountains - Online
About this great book, for those who don't have enough money to buy it yet (like me[img]images/smilies/blush.gif[/img]), there is this digital edition of the book: http://sixote-alin.ru/books/ecolog/title_en.html This was the first translation to English, which was made by Katharine Lofdahl and Alexander Shevlakov (co-translator), 2004. Enjoy the reading.
[quote="'GuateGojira' pid='573' dateline='1398300028'"]
The Ecology of the Amur Tiger based on Long-Term Winter Observations in 1970-1973 in the Western Sector of the Central Sikhote-Alin Mountains - Online About this great book, for those who don't have enough money to buy it yet (like me This was the first translation to English, which was made by Katharine Lofdahl and Alexander Shevlakov (co-translator), 2004. Enjoy the reading. I didn't realize $10,95 could be a killer, but I should, of course, have known better. Sorry about that, Guate. About the two versions. One (Lofdahl and Shevlakov) was published in 2004, whereas the other was in 2012. Are you sure we're talking about the same monograph? One would expect some differences. RECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF WILD AMUR TIGERS 1 - Male tiger 'Murzik'. Notice the large skull. [img]http://i.imgur.com/bWweWlP.jpg" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title=""> *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - Unknown tigress (she and tigress 'Mira' seem to be one and the same).  *This image is copyright of its original author
(04-24-2014, 06:30 AM)'peter' Wrote: I didn't realize $10,95 could be a killer, but I should, of course, have known better. Sorry about that, Guate.My intention was to provide to some posters that actually don’t have the 11 dollars at this moment, the way to read this book. Maybe $11 is not much for you, but for other persons it is. At this moment, for example, I don’t have that quantity at hand, at least not for a book, even if is one that I care. So, I think that my intention was legit, and never tried to disturb anyone by posting it. By the way, it IS the same book, no idea of the reliability of the translation of the online version of 2004, but at least is helpful for the reasons explained before. There will be always differences between translations, that is for sure, but for what I have read, the translation is coherent and reliable. Maybe, when I buy the book for the WCS I would compare it better. In conclusion I am NOT diminishing the new translation and the new book, for the contrary, if you have the money and you like tigers, buy it, it will help them. But for those that don’t have the money right now, there is also the free version. Now, if my link presents a problem I can erase it right now, although this is NOT an illegal copy or something like that, it is an authorized translation that has been here since much before we even started this “animal vs animal” forums. Ps. I hope not to sound rude, but sincerely, I don’t know how to take your comment. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 11 Guest(s) |