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)
|
 (01-25-2019, 06:29 PM)Panther Wrote: Here's Ullas Karanth's (Considered by many as the worlds top leading tiger expert) take on this subject from his book: Ah! The same argument (& screenshots) again... Observations made between ±1950 to 2005 are not "legit", irrespective of whoever made those observations. The reason was discussed in details at the Dholes thread. Please read to the end from here: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-dholes-...9#pid66169 
In this article a little bit about one problem, which isn´t discussed so often, but what is a major issue, I think. If there is no environment for wild animals to live, how many there can be really...
http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/fore...istory.htm This problem is easy to see when looking at satellite images from different continents. Very difficult matter of course, overpopulation is not simple issue and problem is worldwide.
Article about one rescued tiger, hopefully it has made it after treatment :)
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/k...26484.html One article about that place, where that tiger was treated: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/k...894665.ece A few more articles if there is interest to read about rescue centre etc. http://www.uniindia.com/news/features/ve.../3605.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city...693259.cms https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/k...919152.ece
As you might be aware, the Cat Specialist Group revised subspecies of tigers (Pages 66–68) as follows: https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/hand...sAllowed=y
"Panthera tigris tigris (Linnaeus, 1758). Distribution: Mainland Asia, including India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, China, Russia, Indochina and the Malay Peninsula (includes virgata, altaica, amoyensis, corbetti and “jacksoni”). Distingushing characters: Larger size, paler pelage with fewer stripes. Panthera tigris sondaica (Temminck, 1844). Distribution: Sumatra and formerly Java and Bali (includes balica, sumatrae). Distinguishing characters: Smaller size, darker pelage with more frequent stripes." And they put this map on Page 67: If you look closely, there is a relatively narrow body of water separating the ranges of the Mainland Asian (Panthera tigris tigris) and Sunda (Panthera tigris sondaica) subspecies, and that is the Strait of Malacca between the Malayan Peninsula (where the Malayan tiger is based) and the Greater Sunda Island of Sumatra (where the Sumatran tiger (formerly Panthera tigris sumatræ) is based): Map of the Strait of Malacca between the Malayan Peninsula and Sumatra: https://maritimecyprus.com/2014/07/07/sa...e-straits/  *This image is copyright of its original author Malayan tiger (Panthera tigris tigris, formerly Panthera tigris jacksoni or Panthera tigris corbetti), Tigers-World: https://www.tigers-world.com/malayan-tiger/  *This image is copyright of its original author Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica, formerly Panthera tigris sumatræ), Shutterstock: https://nypost.com/2018/01/06/rare-sumat...lantation/  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I've calculated the nearest points of the Malayan Peninsula and Sumatra that I know of, and it's about 40 km (25 miles) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Malacc...99.5450974). I did this was to see if tigers from either Sumatra or Malaya could swim over to each others' territory to establish hybrid populations (Panthera tigris tigris × Panthera tigris sondaica), which is apparently the case for lions in Ethiopia or North-East Africa (Pages 71–73), but the maximum distance ever swum by a tiger appears to be only 29 km (18 miles) (https://books.google.com/books?id=T37sFC...km&f=false). Aside from that, they noted in Page 68 that the South Chinese tiger (Panthera tigris tigris, formerly Panthera tigris amoyensis) had a unique mtDNA haplotype, and I wonder if this is to do with it being a relict population of the stem or ancestral tiger (https://books.google.com/books?id=YdC-wf...edir_esc=y)? South Chinese tiger, WWF: https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/south-china-tiger  *This image is copyright of its original author
Here is an article from December 2018.
Quote: "The research team, which sequenced the genomes of 32 representative tiger specimens, classified tigers into six genetically distinct subspecies. Researchers say the six subspecies include the Bengal, Amur, South China, Sumatran, Indochinese and Malayan tigers. Three other subspecies are extinct." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2018/10/29/genetic-study-confirms-6-tiger-subspecies-exist/#.XFBFvlwzZPY That article is based on this from October 2018, but here you can see only summary if not willing to pay. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)31214-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982218312144%3Fshowall%3Dtrue (01-29-2019, 05:34 PM)Shadow Wrote: Here is an article from December 2018. Amongst other things, do they mean that the Caspian tiger is a different subspecies to the Amur tiger, despite being almost genetically identical? (01-29-2019, 09:51 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:(01-29-2019, 05:34 PM)Shadow Wrote: Here is an article from December 2018. Full study wasn´t visible yet. But that article was quite clear and also experts/scientists quite well known and respected. I just linked that information and sources so, that everyone can check themselves.  (01-29-2019, 09:51 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:(01-29-2019, 05:34 PM)Shadow Wrote: Here is an article from December 2018. I posted the paper (or at least about it) a while back if I remember correctly. It looks like only extant subspecies were analyzed, thus P. t. virgata or any of the other extinct subspecies are excluded from the study. I can't seem to get the paper attached directly here due to the size but here's is a download link.
A new study detailing some museum specimens was recently published. Here is the download link (if direct attachments work later I'll replace it with such).
Here's the Javan tiger they described:  *This image is copyright of its original author They also described a very large 370 mm skull that was genetically attributed to P. t. jacksoni. They do note that the museum records have the tiger as being from India and conclude that either there is a temporal discrepancy between what was described as India then and now or tigers with the defining P. t. jacksoni gene were still able to intermix in India at the time. Here's the skull's measurements:  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (01-31-2019, 02:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote: A new study detailing some museum specimens was recently published. Here is the download link (if direct attachments work later I'll replace it with such). ON SKULL UN 2484 Thanks for the link, Tigerluver. The article was printed and the two skull measurements will be used. This post has a bit more on skull UN 2484. In order to prevent readers from scrolling, I decided to link this post to yours. a - Skull UN 2484 The DNA samples taken from skull UN 2484, collected in 1900, suggest it belonged to a Malayan tiger. The original label, however, says 'India'. The question, therefore, is how to find the truth. Heino, Granroth, Aspi and Pihlstrom offer two explanations: a1 - The one who wrote the label had a different idea about 'India'. a2 - The skull could represent a genetic lineage that has disappeared in the last century, when tigers were nearly hunted to extinction in southeast Asia. There could be another explanation. b - The link between the DNA samples and the label Skull UN 2484 was collected in 1900. It's, therefore, more than likely that the owner of the skull was shot well before 1900. The skull, most probably, was bought from a dealer. He said the skull was from 'India'. Although the DNA samples strongly suggest the skull belonged to a Malayan tiger, the label could be correct. Let's assume it was. In 1900, the map of southeast Asia was quite different from today. Here's a map from 1893:  *This image is copyright of its original author In 1893, the British Empire extended all the way to what now is Malaysia. Was the southern tip of Malaysia included? The map below (see no. 13) says it was. This means the label could have been correct:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - Size of tigers in Malaysia The next question is if tigers in that part of Asia were small or large in the previous century. There is reliable information about the size of tigers in Malaysia. We'll start with Locke. The 11 male tigers shot by Lt.-Col. A. Locke ('The tigers of Terengganu', 1954, pp. 9-13) between 1949 and 1951 in the southeastern part of Malaysia averaged 8.7 (261,62 cm.). The longest he shot was 8.11 (271,78 cm.), but the end of the tail of that male was missing. Had the tail been intact, the tiger would have measured 9.4 (284,48 cm.). His average compared to the average of male tigers shot in Johore by the Sultan (of Johore) between 1898 and 1927. The males shot by the Sultan averaged nearly 8.6 (259,08 cm.). There's more good info about the average size of male tigers in the southern tip of Malaysia. What I found supports the conclusions of Locke on the average size of male tigers shot in southern (Johore) and southeastern (Terengganu) Malaysia 70-120 years ago. Measured in a straight line ('between pegs'), male tigers averaged 255-265 cm. in total length. d - Large male tigers shot in the northern part of Malaysia A century ago, there were much more tigers than today. Furthermore, they could move from one region to another (young adult male tigers in particular are great walkers). For these reasons, individual variation was more pronounced. Any evidence of large male tigers shot in Malaysia a century ago? E.G. Burgess ('Early Days in Malaya', JBNHS, Vol. XXXVIII) first visited Malaysia in 1900. For the first ten years, he " ... lived in the heart of the jungle, engaged at first in surveys and construction works, and later on in opening up large areas of land for rubber cultivation ... " (pp. 241). In India, his experience was limited to the Nilgiri Hills of the Madras province. He did " ... a fair amount of shooting, but was not bitten with the lust to kill, and ... did not shoot with the idea of obtaining records ... " (pp. 242). In his first district in Malaysia (Perak), he shot 13 tigers. The only person who shot more tigers was the Sultan of Johore. As to the size of tigers he shot: " ... The general opinion among sportsmen in India is that the Malayan tiger is a smaller animal than his Indian cousin, but I am convinced this is not the case. I can vouch to shooting one which measured 9 ft. 8 in. between pegs, and although this was exceptional, one other measured 9 ft. 3 in. and another 9 ft. 0 in. All that I got were well conditioned and massive beasts, and of the forty or fifty trophies I have seen in India, and the half dozen or so I have seen killed on the Nilgiris, not one has compared with my big one, and all were much of an average with the full grown tiger of Malaya. I may mention that all my big tigers ... were shot in the one district in Perak. Of those I shot in Johore and Negri Sembilan none measured more than 8 ft. 8 in. ... " (pp. 243). A man-eater also shot in Perak was 9.4 (284,48 cm.) in total length 'between pegs'. e - Large male tigers shot in the southern part of Malaysia Apart from Terengganu (Locke), there is information on the size of tigers shot in Johore (southern tip of Malaysia). Here's an interview with the Sultan of Johore ('The Wide World Magazine', Vol. IX, July 1902):  *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 About 100-120 years ago, male tigers measured in a straight line averaged nearly 8.6, but some shot by the Sultan of Johore well exceeded 9 feet. The longest shot was 9.8 (294,64 cm.). Although the average greatest total skull length of males didn't exceed 13 inches (330,20 mm.), one skull was 365,00 mm. It still tops the table. That skull was from a male shot in Johore. Based on what I have, my guess is that tigers in northern Malaysia (Perak), the northern part of Burma (now Myanmar) and Annam (central part of Vietnam) were larger than those in Johore. The largest tiger shot by Baze in Vietnam was 338 cm. in total length, most probably measured 'over curves' (tail length 118 cm.), and weighed 260 kg. (575 pounds). I have several other records of male tigers shot in Vietnam well exceeding 10.0 (304,80 cm.) in total length measured 'over curves'. Most of them were shot just before and after World War Two in what was then French Indochina. Most unfortunately, the number of skulls of P.t. corbetti in natural history museums in Europe is limited. I never heard of a large skull of an Indochinese tiger in a European natural history museum, but it's very likely that skulls of large males well exceeded 15 inches (381,00 mm.) in greatest total length. f - Skull UN 2484 Is it possible that the owner of skull UN 2484 was from 'India', as the label said? Yes. The southern part of Malaysia was part of the British Empire when the tiger was shot. Are there reliable records of male tigers shot in southern Malaysia exceeding 9.0 (274,32 cm.) in total length 'between pegs'? Yes. All of them were shot before the outbreak of World War Two. According to one hunter, male tigers shot in Perak (northern part of Malaysia) compared to male tigers shot in southern India in all respects. He wrote they were 'massive and well conditioned beasts'. The photographs in the article posted show that some of the males shot by the Sultan of Johore had quite large skulls. Can skulls of large male tigers shot in Johore exceed 14 inches (355,60 mm.) in greatest total length? Yes. At least one was 365 mm. Skull UN 2484, at 370,00 mm., could be another. Male tigers shot in Terengganu and Johore after World War Two only very seldom exceeded 8.8 (264,16 cm.) in total length measured 'between pegs'. The only exception was the 8.11 male shot by Locke (see above). 
The Bali tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica) formally ‘’P. tigris balica’’ , harimau Bali in Indonesian, or samong in Balinese, is an extinct tiger subspecies that was native to the Indonesian island of Bali. The Bali tiger was the smallest of all nine tiger races (formally sub-species), comparable to a large leopard or cougar in size.
WEIGHT Male: usually 90–100 kg (200–220 lb), Female: was 65–80 kg (143–176 lb). LENGTH Male: about 220–230 cm (87–91 in) in length (with tail), Female: 190–210 cm (75–83 in). It was one of three races/subspecies of tigers found in Indonesia or Sundaland, and the first to go extinct. Others include Javan tiger, which is also extinct, and the "Critically Endangered" Sumatran tiger. Bali tiger became extinct because of habitat loss and hunting. Given the small size of the island and limited forest cover, the original population could never have been large. Surabayan gunmaker E. Munaut is confirmed to have killed over 20 tigers in only a few years in 1930s. Quote:The last specimen definitely recorded was a female shot at Sumbar Kima, west Bali, on 27 September 1937. It was probably eliminated by the end of World War II. A few tigers may have survived until the 1950s, but no specimen reached museum collections after the war. Many claims of sighting have been made since, but without proof, mostly by forestry officers, in 1952, 1970 and 1972. Though it is thought that the Balinese tiger was never captured alive on film or motion picture, or displayed in a public zoo, but some records now show it indeed was captured alive on film. Quote:In early 1910s two young Bali tigers were trapped down by some Hungarian hunters and sold to USA based ‘’Ringling Brothers Circus’’. They were photographed by Circus Life photographer Harry A. Atwell in 1915. Photos were later tracked down from a history book who documented these animals. Only a few skulls, skins and bones are preserved in museums. The British Museum in London has the largest collection, with two skins and three skulls. In 1941, the first game reserve, today's West Bali National Park, was established in western Bali, but too late to save Bali‘s tiger population from extinction. A few tiger skulls, skins and bones are preserved in museums. The British Museum in London has the largest collection, with two skins and three skulls. Others include the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt, the Naturkunde Museum in Stuttgart, the Naturalis museum in Leiden and the Zoological Museum of Bogor, Indonesia, which owns the remnants of the last known Bali tiger. In 1997, a skull emerged in the old collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum and was scientifically studied and properly documented.
Aside from the fact that the Amur and Caspian tigers used to be one population, hence their close relationship (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0004125), did anyone notice how close the ranges of the Caspian and Bengal tigers were, and that the former was in South Asia like the latter?
Mazák's map of ranges of tigers: https://web.archive.org/web/201203091255...1-0001.pdf Afghanistan is regarded as a South Asian country, like Pakistan, where the Bengal tiger used to be recorded, and India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan, where the Bengal tiger currently is: http://www.saarc-sec.org
 *This image is copyright of its original author From this, we can see that Mughals must have come across both Bengal and Caspian tigers, or their ancestors, depending on whether or not they could have been treated as different populations at that time. Mughal painting of 'Ala'ud-Din (a better way of writing 'Aladdin') and Mahima Dharma hunting a tiger, circa 1790 in the Punjab (present-day India and Pakistan): http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecat...ot.13.html  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |