There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
07-12-2014, 07:12 PM( This post was last modified: 11-28-2015, 04:35 PM by peter )
THE CASPIAN TIGER (Panthera tigris virgata)
The article Roflcopters posted (good find) is interesting, because it shows Kazakhstan is interested in re-introducing an extinct tiger subspecies in its original habitat. Mighty interesting.
Amur tigers could be transported to Kazakhstan and, perhaps, adjust after running trials. The reason is resecent research showed the genetic differences between Panthera tigris altaica and Panthera tigris virgata are close to zilch. This, however, doesn't mean they were or are one and the same, Guate. It depends on the point of view. If we follow Kitchener and Dugmore (1999) and assume there were Caspian tigers in the last glacial maximum, they could have dispersed to eastern parts of Asia and mixed with Panthera tigris amoyensis and/or Panthera tigris altaica. But J.H. Mazak made a case for a very different scenario (Amur tigers older and going west).
Based on everything I read, my take is the case still is unclear. One of the main questions I have is how tigers got to the Caspian region in the first place. Most biologists think tigers are unable to cross deserts and live in mountain ranges, but Brandt (1856), who read everything available on tigers, thought there were populations in very deserted regions in parts of Central-Asia a few hundred years ago. Not transients. Than there are the Bhutan tigers. They, without a shadow of doubt, show tigers can adjust to living in elevated and barren regions. Did tigers get to the Caspian region from India or did they travel from China?
Another question I have is why Caspian tigers showed so much variation in colour, stripe pattern, size and skull. They are much more diverse than in, say, the Amur region. To me, it points towards different populations in different regions. This, if you look at the map and the conditions, would make sense.
Anyhow. Below are a few pages of an article (Chikin-Tsaruk) I posted before (on AVA). I couldn't find a date, but assume it was written at the request of the Kazakhstan Departments responsible for the project mentioned in the article posted by Roflcopters:
*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
Interesting info, I think. To finish the post, a few more maps I found in Heptner & Sludskij (German edition, 1980) and V. Mazak ('Der Tiger', 1983). All maps, in my opinion, point towards a more complicated picture regarding tiger distribution in north-west India, the Caspian region and Central-Asia:
a - V. Mazak on the distribution of Caspian and Amur tigers (1983)
*This image is copyright of its original author
b - Heptner on Amur tigers (1980)
*This image is copyright of its original author
c - Tiger distribution in Central-Asia (Heptner, 1980)
*This image is copyright of its original author
4 - Kitchener & Dugmore on tiger distribution in the last glacial maximum (1999, two models).
Compare with the previous maps and answer the question in what direction tigers spread after the last glacial maximum. Amur and Caspian tigers were present in both maps. Two very different regions and apparently nothing in between. The origin of Amur tigers seems clear (China), but where did the Caspians come from? And who was where first?
Let's move to the last millenium. Did Amur tigers spread west or did Caspian tigers go east? And why are tigers in central and western parts of China left out of the proceedings? Is it possible they spread north, west and east? There were tigers in parts of Central-Asia. Steady populations, according to Brandt (1856). They were the first to go when Russian spread east. Were they different from Amur and Caspian tigers? Everything I know says yes.
What is the real meaning of the genetic research on Amur and Caspian tigers, I wonder?
07-12-2014, 08:14 PM( This post was last modified: 07-12-2014, 08:15 PM by GuateGojira )
(07-11-2014, 11:55 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Don't be angry Gaute. Look at the good news, we will now have a new place to see wild Amur/Caspian Tigers.
The real question is how?
How can they bring back an extinct Tiger "allegedly"?
I am not angry with the reintroduction, I am angry with Wikipedia. The editors in the tiger section are a group of IGNORANT.
In one occasion I clearly show that male tigers in the wild are good fathers, that they even take care of they young, but the group of people there keep saying that male tigers "kill they sons". WHAT???? I keep posting data, but they even erased it, so I lost every trust in Wikipedia. Some articles are still in the original form, for example I was the one that created the section of "size" with the Bengal and Amur tigers, but at this time, someone have put his/her dirty hands on my sections, which is disgusting.
I will certainly NOT believe in Wikipedia, but many people DO, and that is what make me angry!!! [img]images/smilies/angry.gif[/img]
(07-11-2014, 11:55 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Don't be angry Gaute. Look at the good news, we will now have a new place to see wild Amur/Caspian Tigers.
The real question is how?
How can they bring back an extinct Tiger "allegedly"?
I am not angry with the reintroduction, I am angry with Wikipedia. The editors in the tiger section are a group of ignorant.
In one occasion I clearly show that male tigers in the wild are good fathers, that they even take care of they young, but the group of people there keep saying that male tigers "kill they sons". WHAT???? I keep posting data, but they even erased it, so I lost every trust in Wikipedia. Some articles are still in the original form, for example I was the one that created the section of "size" with the Bengal and Amur tigers, but at this time, someone have put his/her dirty hands on my sections, which is disgusting.
I will certainly NOT believe in Wikipedia, but many people DO, and that is what make me angry!!! [img]images/smilies/angry.gif[/img]
Thats why this forum is so great. People can try and quote wiki, then we say
"show me the data"
They respond "what?"
Then we show them actual measurements, sizes, weights, etc... Then hopefully they realize they are quoting nonsense, and begin to search on their own.
This doesn't happen often, but I do see it from time to time.
But either way, anybody using wiki as a source, is obviously not able to find actual info to back whatever their claims are. Or just not willing to search on their own.
The following 1 user Likes Pckts's post:1 user Likes Pckts's post • epaiva
(07-12-2014, 07:12 PM)'peter' Wrote: The article Roflcopters posted (good find) is interesting, because it shows Kazakhstan still is interested in re-introducing an extinct tiger subspecies in its original habitat. Kazakhstan had tigers not so long ago and the region still seems to be suited to an extent.
Mighty interesting, I'd say.
Amur tigers could be transported to Kazakhstan and, perhaps, adjust after running trials. The reason is resecent research showed the genetic differences between Panthera tigris altaica and Panthera tigris virgata are close to zilch. This, however, doesn't mean they were or are one and the same, Guate. It depends on the point of view. If we follow Kitchener and Dugmore (1999) and assume there were Caspian tigers in the last glacial maximum, they could have dispersed to eastern parts of Asia and mixed with Panthera tigris amoyensis and/or Panthera tigris altaica. But J.H. Mazak made a case for a very different scenario (Amur tigers older and going west).
Based on everything I read, my take is the case still is unclear. One of the main questions I have is how tigers got to the Caspian region in the first place. Most biologists think tigers are unable to cross deserts and live in mountain ranges, but Brandt (1856), who read everything available on tigers, thought there were populations in very deserted regions in parts of Central-Asia a few hundred years ago. Not transients. Than there are the Bhutan tigers. They, without a shadow of doubt, show tigers can adjust to living in elevated and barren regions. Did tigers get to the Caspian region from India or did they travel from China?
Another question I have is why Caspian tigers showed so much variation in colour, stripe pattern, size and skull. They are much more diverse than in, say, the Amur region. To me, it points towards different populations in different regions. This, if you look at the map and the conditions, would make sense.
Anyhow. Below are a few pages of an article (Chikin-Tsaruk) I posted before (on AVA). I couldn't find a date, but assume it was written at the request of the Kazakhstan Departments responsible for the project mentioned in the article posted by Roflcopters:
*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
Interesting info, I think. To finish the post, a few more maps I found in Heptner & Sludskij (German edition, 1980) and V. Mazak ('Der Tiger', 1983). All maps, in my opinion, point towards a more complicated picture regarding tiger distribution in north-west India, the Caspian region and Central-Asia:
a - V. Mazak on distribution and direction in all of Asia (1983)
*This image is copyright of its original author
b - Heptner on tiger distribution and movement in eastern Siberia (1980)
*This image is copyright of its original author
c - Tiger distribution and movement in Central-Asia (Heptner, 1980)
*This image is copyright of its original author
4 - Kitchener & Dugmore (1999) on tiger distribution in the last glacial maximum (two models). Compare with the previous maps and answer the question in what direction tigers spread after the last glacial maximum. Amur and Caspian tigers were present in both maps. Two very different regions and apparently nothing in between. The origin of Amur tigers seems clear (China), but where did the Caspians come from? And who was where first?
Let's move to the last millenium. Did Amur tigers spread west or did Caspian tigers go east? And why are tigers in central and western parts of China left out of the proceedings? Is it possible they spread north, west and east? There were tigers in parts of Central-Asia. Steady populations, according to Brandt (1856). They were the first to go when Russian spread east. Were they different from Amur and Caspian tigers? Everything I know says yes.
What is the real meaning of the genetic research on Amur and Caspian tigers, I wonder?
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
What is your opinion about the genetic affiliation of the Pleistocene tigers in China?
Were they more closely related to South China tiger or Amur tiger?
07-18-2014, 08:58 AM( This post was last modified: 07-18-2014, 09:04 AM by peter )
Based on the skulls I saw, my guess is Amur tigers are closer to Pleistocene tigers. I don't see a connection between Amur tigers and South-China tigers, but tigers in Central-China (referring to the photographs in V. Mazak's book 'Der Tiger') seem more related to Amur tigers than to other subspecies. Both inhabited elevated regions, whereas the habitat of tigers in south-east China was different.
I tend to agree with the observations of V.H. Mazak on 'old' (South-China and Indonesia) and 'new' tigers (other regional types), but think there could have been another group that survived the Tadoba eruption. This group could have spread to southern Siberia, Mongolia, the Caspian region and south-east Russia. Maybe they disappeared from southern Siberia and Mongolia during the last glacial maximum, but they, judging from Kitchener and Dugmore (1999), could have survived in the most western and eastern parts (the Caspian region and eastern Russia and Korea) as well as in parts of Manchuria. When conditions improved after the last glacial maximum, tigers again moved east (from the Caspian region) and west (from Russia). Manchurian tigers then only spread north and east (to Russia and Korea).
I hope to read an article on fossils and skulls found in central and northern parts of China soon.
07-28-2014, 09:24 PM( This post was last modified: 07-29-2014, 12:20 AM by Apollo )
I like to create a Data Bank for tigers.
You can post all the studies, research and data available on tigers.
Please dont post only the links for certain studies.
No need to post the entire study, just post the parts which you think is necessary.
07-28-2014, 09:32 PM( This post was last modified: 07-29-2014, 12:42 AM by Apollo )
1)
Home Range of the Radio-collared Bengal Tigers in Pench Tiger Reserve
In this study three tigers were radio collared (one adult female, one adult male and a subadult male). During the period March 2008 to December 2011.
*This image is copyright of its original author
More info on the study area
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
All three tigers were weighed and measured. The adult male was estimated in at 200-220Kg and was administered 3ml sedative, but it was not enough to bring the male down so they again sedated the male with another 1.2ml sedative, which is 40% more sedative than actually required for a (200-220Kg) male. So this could been the adult male was possibly heavier than their estimated weight. Unfortunately I guess there weighing scale was not big enough to see this males full potential and hence they reported the weight to be greater than 200Kg.
07-29-2014, 06:35 AM( This post was last modified: 07-29-2014, 06:37 AM by peter )
Good initiative. This is what we want to see, Apollo. I wouldn't mind to see a few conclusions added, as these can be helpful and/or trigger a few debates.
I propose to start similar threads for other big cats. I know a lot has been published in the last decades.
The following 1 user Likes peter's post:1 user Likes peter's post • Apollo
08-23-2014, 10:57 AM( This post was last modified: 08-23-2014, 10:58 AM by GuateGojira )
A male tiger of 263 cm in total length seems correct, but this male was certainly not of 6-7 years old. Take a look at the only picture were we can see the canine, it is clearly white, which suggest a young adult of barely 3 to 4 years old.
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
