Login

GuateGojira · 02-23-2015, 11:06 AM

Contrary to popular belief, there are less than 100 tigers in the Sundarbans, and based in the very few captured animals, all of them seems frail and underweight. The side of Bangladesh is probably no different, sadly. [img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img]

This is a hard, but necessary strike of truth, Sundarbans tigers ARE in great danger, they are NOT the largest population of tigers in the Indian subcontinent. [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]

peter · 02-23-2015, 03:56 PM

GuateGojira\ dateline='\'1424666923' Wrote: Thanks for your reply Peter, I really appreciate it. Just a few replays here:

1. The plate looks more like a colored picture than a simple draw. The details are too perfect, so I guess that in fact, it is a photograph. What I still ask to you is the scan of the page where it is mentioned the weight of 705 lb, that is because I normally kept all the images of the records, with special care on the original sources. In this case, I will add that page in my database, together with the plate. I will like to know if the other posters also believe that that "draw" in the plate is probably a colored "photograph" or not; for me, it is just too perfect.

2. I was not "harsh" with Mazák, but I confess that maybe I was a little dramatic.
3. I respect your point of view, in the issue that it is a fallacy to think most tigers shot by well-known hunters in immense shooting parties (5.000-10.000 staff) were baited. Maybe you are right, and based in the discussion with Waveriders and others, it seems that the food intake could be lower than we think. However, the descriptions that I have read about this hunting parties in Nepal, always mention that the tigers were baited, so that directs me to think that all tigers hunted in Nepal seems baited, but probably not gorged. However, as I am very conservative (despite some others claims), I tried to found an explanation about the huge weight of that tiger, and the bait issue seems very plausible. Now, your statements about giant tigers in the past are very plausible too, specially with so many reports that can't be ignored just like that.

One final interesting fact, is that this giant tiger of 705 lb was hunted in the Chitwan region, in the same place where the Sauraha male and his relatives lived some time latter. It is possible (or maybe just a wild guess) that the genes of those giant tigers, somehow, lived and were carried by the famous T-105 male and that will explain why there are at least 4 males, captured by scientists, that weighed over 600 lb in that particular area.

Peter say: "Twelve foot tigers? Only on 'forums', most zoologists would say. There are no skulls suggesting there could have been 11 feet tigers, let alone 12 feet. I have a question for them. Which biologist visited India and talked to those in the know? Who visited all parks and museums and talked to rangers, biologists and hunters? Who visited museums in eastern Russia and northern China and measured skulls? Central Asia then?"

I am 100% agree with that. I will like to see people like Yamaguchi measuring some large Bengal tiger skulls in India and Nepal, before reporting his "conclusions".

1 - A scan of the 10.9 tiger shot in nepal

Below, you'll find the page you're interested in. If you look closely, the page answers more than one question. It confirms the weight of the 10.9 tiger (a), but it also confirms these large shooting parties accounted for many tigers in a short space of time. This means it is very unlikely all these tigers had been baited in the weeks before the shooting party arrived (b).

The Maharajah's shikari probably kept the tigers and leopards satisfied by driving herbivores into the area where he wanted to keep the big cats, but it seems unlikely all individuals were served for many weeks (preparations for a large shooting party took a long time).

The record leopard (9.4 'over curves') must have been a giant. He was much longer than the next longest (8.6 'over curves'). I remember the recent report on the giant who was well over 200 pounds when he was caught, but I never read anything on his dimensions when he died in captivity some years ago:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/UtJyvu3.jpg" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title="">

*This image is copyright of its original author

2a - Mazak on skulls

I agree Mazak should have distinguished between wild and captive Amur tigers. He didn't and the result was confusion. The reason he didn't, I think, was the very limited number of skulls. I can confirm that even skulls of captive Amur tigers are quite rare in European museums. I never saw a skull of a Caspian tiger. Same for skulls of Panthera tigris amoyensis, Panthera leo persica and Panthera tigris tigris. Skulls of wild animals in particular are a rarity in most museums.

2b - Researchers and preference

I also think Mazak could have been preferenced to a degree. A few examples. The longest lion skull he measured was in the Zoological Museum Amsterdam (pp. 196 in the German translation). The greatest total length wasn't, as Mazak wrote, 402,00 mm., but 408,00 mm. My measurement was confirmed by the conservator and a few others, all qualified people. I also measured some of the tiger skulls he mentioned in his book. In nearly every case, the result in greatest total length was a bit below Mazak's result. To be sure, I again had all results tested. I didn't tell the others about my result. All confirmed what I had found.

Maybe the tiger skulls had shrunk with age and maybe the lion skull kept on growing after he had perished? Mazak wasn't the only one who was creative while keeping books. I remember a well-known researcher who wrote Kruger male lion skulls averaged 380,00 mm. in greatest total length. Then J.H. Mazak started measuring lion skulls. The results of his quest were published recently. His average for Kruger lion skulls was 369,00 mm., a difference of 11 mm. (...). The difference wasn't a result of sample size. Maybe the sample was different? Maybe the lion skulls shrunk when they saw Mazak coming in. Who knows? Preference is a powerful drive, but it has a few disadvantages. I can give you more examples.

One would expect preference to have an effect at a higher level of abstraction as well. This, however, is not the case. My conclusions regarding lions, tigers and average size are very close to those of Mazak. Same for many other conclusions Mazak got to. I also agree with Yamaguchi's conclusions on lions, tigers and average size. Preference, therefore, doesn't seem to affect conclusions at a higher level of abstraction. It just increases or decreases the greatest total length in individual skulls at times. I wouldn't worry about it. All researchers mentioned, I think, are both productive and excellent. Mazak in particular is someone I respect. The reason is he opened a lot of doors for me. This will not be forgotten.

2c - Mazak on the size of Amur and Indian tigers

I can't agree with your verdict on Mazak's assessment regarding Amur tigers. Mazak based his conclusions on the data he had. When his book was published, there was no doubt that Amur tigers, at the level of averages, topped most lists by a margin. They still do. Amur tigers are longer and taller than all other big cats. This conclusion is true for both captive and wild Amur tigers. Same for females, I think.

Same for weight. In his book, Mazak referred to 9 wild male Amur tigers. They were 245, 250, 184, 196, 217, 195, 270, 250 and 221 kg. If we deduct the captive males he added, the average is 225,33 kg. Remember all data were collected before 1983 and most probably before 1965 (the first edition of his book).

The question is if the weights he used were reliable. Another question is if he included all male tigers. We now know wild male Amur tigers only very seldom exceed 200 kg., but this could be a result of changing conditions. Russian authorities wrote the average weight of wild Amur tigers decreased until the seventies of the last century. Maybe the average found a decade ago (176-177 kg.) was the bottom of a long period of decline and maybe they really averaged 215-220 kg. half a century ago. Maybe conditions will improve and maybe this will be reflected in the average weight.

Captive Amur tigers didn't suffer from deteriorating conditions and hunters. Based on everything I have, the conclusion is the average for adult males ranges between 450-500 pounds and probably closer to 500 (about 480, I think). Although one has to assume this average probably is higher than the average for animals who face tough conditions, it seems more realistic for a big cat averaging close to 9.8 straight and 14,5 inches in greatest total skull length.

Indian tigers, in spite of the overwhelming amount of reliable data, are an enigma. The problem is the amount of regional variation and a lack of data on the extremes. Although I also think the average for wild Indian male tigers in northern India, Nepal and Assam probably exceeds 200 and even 210 kg., it is a fact all samples I saw were small. And then there is adjustment, of course.

As a result, we have no other option but to use data collected a long time ago in north-east and north-west India and these say wild male Amur tigers were a bit heavier than wild male Assam and wild male Nepal tigers about a century ago. Mazak, therefore, wasn't wrong when he, in 1965 and again in 1983, wrote Amur tigers were heavier and more robust than Indian tigers. But he wasn't sure, as he wrote some Indians tigers also were very large. That's why he added 'seems' in his statement on the size of Amur and Indian tigers.

3 - Baiting

This was discussed above. I agree with the statement that many Indian tigers were baited before they were shot. This no doubt would have increased many weights mentioned in letters and articles to a degree.

As for large shooting parties. I do not doubt shikaris tried to concentrate many large tigers in the area designed. I also do not doubt they were baited to a degree in that wild herbivores would have been driven into the perimeter they had in mind. That, however, doesn't mean that every individual tiger was baited. It close to impossible to bait every individual when the perimeter has more than one adult tiger, for the simple reason wild tigers, apart from those they know, do not allow others close to the kill they made. Anyone able to lure every individual to the spot where meals were served would have been a true magician.

4 - Genes and size

There's no question that tigers inhabiting isolated regions decline in size over time. The time needed, I think, is well below a century. If a population gets below a minimum and conditions result in increased stress, the process is accelerated. The Sunderbans is a good example, but there are more.

One would expect to see the opposite in large and well-stocked parks, especially when there are corridors to others parks. Protection also will have an effect in that large individuals will be able to pass on their genes more often than in unprotected regions. The region just south of the Himalayas always produced large individuals. One reason is tigers are able to move over remarkable distances without being shot on sight.

The question on genes and size is difficult to answer. Over time, typical treats will emerge in a region, but I also noted most healthy regions produced large individuals. Not to the degree seen in lions perhaps, but there is a significant amount of individual variation in most regions. The exceptions to the rule are Bali, Java and, perhaps, eastern Russia, but not Sumatra. The lack of variation could have been a result of a combination of a decline in numbers and, as a result of habitat loss, stress. Sumatra tigers were different in that the decline in numbers was slower than in the other three regions. Sumatra was and still is wild country.

5 - Museums

It seems many think that museums and special collections are here to stay. Not true. In the Netherlands, a number of large state-paid museums were forced to merge. They didn't succeed in all cases. At times, a collection was sold. A large part of the collection of the Tropenmuseum (Museum for the Tropics) was recently sold to Egypt (...). This means I now have to travel to Cairo in order to be able to read the hunter magazins I had in mind.

When neo-liberalism is here to stay, chances are collections will be bought by wealthy individuals. Maybe museums will be forced to sell skulls in times of need. Dutch museums would be targeted by some, because of the number of skulls from Java, Sumatra and Bali. Most Bali skulls have been sold to wealthy collectors. Imagine what could happen to skulls in museums in India, Russia and a number of former Sovjet republics.

Over the years, I noticed a reduction of large skulls in museums. There are few tiger skulls exceeding 14 inches in greatest total length in European museums today. No wonder researchers dismiss records of 15- and 16-inch tiger skulls out of hand. A great pity, I think.

Amnon242 · 02-23-2015, 11:06 PM

(02-23-2015, 09:59 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:
(02-22-2015, 02:03 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:
(02-22-2015, 10:20 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: However, not all scientists were influenced by Mazák and his biased idea that Amur tigers were the only giants.

V. Mazak wrote that amur tigers are the biggest, but according to him bengal tigers were the same league. For instance he wrote "not only amur tigers, but also bengal tigers are definitely bigger than lions".

Yes, but he also said that "It thus seems that the species has reached its maximum size in the living subspecies P. t. altaica". However, now we know that this is incorrect, in modern and prehistoric times.

Yes, he said that amur tigers are the biggest. But that statement is different from "Amur tigers were the only giants."

Mazak: Big Cats and Chetahs (1980): "Biggest tigers live in India, particularly in famous Kuamon, and in particular in northern area of (tigers) expansion, in Manchuria and South-eastern Siberia".

"Indian tiger is a big form of tiger....famous Bachelor of Powalgarh belonged to this subspecies - we mentioned this tiger in connection with the potential size of tigers".

I feel the need to defend Mazak, because his above mentioned book introduced me the world of big cats :-)

Amnon242 · 02-23-2015, 11:32 PM

(02-23-2015, 03:56 PM)'peter' Wrote: I agree Mazak should have measured skulls in India, but he, like all others, decided against it for unknown reasons.

Mazak lived in communist Czechoslovakia. It was not so easy to travel abroad (outside of the soviet block) back in the days. It was not impossible, but it was complicated.

GrizzlyClaws · 02-24-2015, 12:50 AM

(02-19-2015, 10:19 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Looking forward to your review on the book, Peter.

Thanks for the picture, Wave.

From that photo, I extrapolated a body length of about 215-220 cm over curves using the over curves total length. I don't give this value too much weight as its simply a picture and might be idealized. But going from this, it looks like a tiger of a short tail. If the tiger has an average tail, it being around Sauraha's mass is possible and likely. At the same time, there's about 23%-30% variation in the tiger length vs. mass relationship, so if the specimen was on the high end of robusticity 320 kg is possible to a significant degree, but I'd venture to say empty belly it would be more in the 305-310 kg range with extra robusticity and a short tail.

@GrizzlyClaws, that's a different Baikal.

According to Warsaw, he believes that Baikal was not 850 pounds, and that killed old tiger was the same Baikal, and that tiger should only weigh about 400 pounds.

What do you think about the studbook?
http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9832903/74/

*This image is copyright of its original author

WaveRiders · 02-24-2015, 06:13 AM

(02-23-2015, 03:56 PM)'peter' Wrote: 2b - Researchers and preference

I also think Mazak could have been preferenced to a degree. A few examples. The longest lion skull he measured was in the Zoological Museum Amsterdam (pp. 196 in the German translation). The greatest total length wasn't, as Mazak wrote, 402,00 mm., but 408,00 mm. My measurement was confirmed by the conservator and a few others, all qualified people. I also measured some of the tiger skulls he mentioned in his book. In nearly every case, the result in greatest total length was a bit below Mazak's result. To be sure, I again had all results tested. I didn't tell the others about my result. All confirmed what I had found.

Maybe the tiger skulls had shrunk with age and maybe the lion skull kept on growing after he had perished? Mazak wasn't the only one who was creative while keeping books. I remember a well-known researcher who wrote Kruger male lion skulls averaged 380,00 mm. in greatest total length. Then J.H. Mazak started measuring lion skulls. The results of his quest were published recently. His average for Kruger lion skulls was 369,00 mm., a difference of 11 mm. (...). The difference wasn't a result of sample size. Maybe the sample was different? Maybe the lion skulls shrunk when they saw Mazak coming in. Who knows? Preference is a powerful drive, but it has a few disadvantages. I can give you more examples.

One would expect preference to have an effect at a higher level of abstraction as well. This, however, is not the case. My conclusions regarding lions, tigers and average size are very close to those of Mazak. Same for many other conclusions Mazak got to. I also agree with Yamaguchi's conclusions on lions, tigers and average size. Preference, therefore, doesn't seem to affect conclusions at a higher level of abstraction. It just increases or decreases the greatest total length in individual skulls at times. I wouldn't worry about it. All researchers mentioned, I think, are both productive and excellent. Mazak in particular is someone I respect. The reason is he opened a lot of doors for me. This will not be forgotten.

Your allegation that because V. Mazak appears to have been biased therefore some modern zoologists are likely biased too and in the most stupid and amateur way (cheating on measurements) when and if they concentrate on a particular animal is very bizarre. I would really like to discuss this concept with the kind of Bailey, Ballard, Baryshnikov, Bertram, Bibikov, Blanchard Craighead, Derocher, Goodrich, Herrero, Hoogesteijn, Hornocker, Karanth, Kistchinski, Kitchener, Kolenosky, Kruuk, Mech, Miquelle, Mondolfi, Nowak, Packer, Pulliainen, Rogers, Schaller, Smuts, Stirling, Stringham, Sunquist, Yamaguchi just to mention a few more or less specialists still alive.

The well known researcher(s) who wrote Kruger male lion skulls averaged 380,00 mm are Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010). “Then J.H. Mazak started measuring lion skulls” – you meant Mazak (2010) publication - "His average for Kruger lion skulls was 369,00 mm., a difference of 11 mm. (...). The difference wasn't a result of sample size. Maybe the sample was different? Maybe the lion skulls shrunk when they saw Mazak coming in. Who knows?"

I do agree that at first sight a difference of 10.5 mm in the average greatest skull length among lions of the same population may sound wrong, and even more if the two averages come from exactly the same skulls. You pose questions but you did not try to find educated answers and just leave the allegation.

Now I will now explain you very simply and quickly how unbiased men of science like I am read and understand what you have superficially interpreted and I will do that without recurring to e-mails and telephone calls, but just analyzing those two papers.

1)   It was not J.H. Mazak who measured the lion skulls reported in the paper. ALL of them have been measured by Vratislav Mazak during the 1960s-1970s or so.

2)   To measure hundreds and hundreds of wild lion (or tiger) skulls can take years and not just a few months (it depends from the available time and funds).

3)   Kitchener, Yamaguchi and J.H. Mazak are in good professional relationships and their respective research does not blindly contradict and challenge the one of the other. For sure they do not care at all if one found an average greatest skull length for adult male Kruger lions of 380 mm and the other found 367.45 mm for South Africa adult male lions.

4)   Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) specify the skulls come from Kruger NP while Mazak (2010) simply specifies South Africa as country of origin (not to be confounded with Southern Africa). While it is well possible that all the South Africa lion skulls measured by V. Mazak come from Kruger NP too, a difference in greatest length could be partly explained by the fact that according to my info and data Kruger lion skulls are on average generally slightly more elongated then all others, have well developed sagittal crest and are proportionally not particularly wide. I do not have enough data to state if lion skulls from other parts of South Africa are undistinguishable from Kruger lions, but I can suggest that Botswana lion skulls particularly those from Okavango appear to be on average slightly shorter, wider and more massive then Kruger lion skulls.

5)   Going into the specific, Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) refer to Yamaguchi et al. (2009) as far as lion skulls examined are concerned. Specimens in Yamaguchi et al. (2009) are not detailed as in Mazak (2010), but If you cross the Museums you will understand that it is unlikely they have measured exactly the same specimens. For instance V. Mazak reports skulls from U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C, while Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) do not. The latter authors report instead skulls from Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Germany, while Mazak does not (surprisingly). Then there are also Museums in Stockolm and Bruxelles visited by V. Mazak only (in Mazak, 2010) and Museums in Oxford, Kent, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Strasbourg visited by Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) only. Although they are supposed to share a significant portion of the skulls (likely all the ones from in the Natural History Museum of London and of the Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale in Tervuren, Belgium) I believe that assuming they measured exactly the same skulls (13 of the 15 vs 13) is pretentious and unlikely.

6)   You measured a single lion skull which had been measured by V. Mazak and found your greatest length measurement 6 mm longer and then you are amazed why measuring not all the same skulls Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) found an average 11 mm longer then what results from V. Mazak data (reported by J.H. Mazak, 2010): Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) are exactly consistent to your result.

7)   If one looks to perform an elementary statistics analysis instead of superficially focusing only on the average 380 vs 369.45 like a layman it is possible to understand that 380 is included in the upper limit of the 95 % Confidence Interval of the mean (382.98) when seen from Mazak data, while 369.47 is included in the lower limit of the 99 % Confidence Interval of the mean (368.51) when seen from Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) average. Furthermore if we add your 6 mm difference to Mazak average reaching 375.45, this figure is well included in the 95% CI of the mean calculated by Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) average. The conclusion is that as the two samples do not appear to be exactly the same and can therefore be considered two different means of the same (or consistent) population, a differences of ca. 10.5 mm or ca. 4.5 mm (following your 6 mm discrepancy) in the means are statistically compatible, plausible and not an absurd bias of professional zoologists.

                    WaveRiders

GrizzlyClaws · 02-24-2015, 06:41 AM

The Serengeti lions from Tanzania also have pretty massive skull, although not the longest.

From my own observation, they got the longest canine teeth of all lions.

GrizzlyClaws · 02-24-2015, 06:52 AM

Some monstrous bulky Amur tiger comparing with the normal lion and lioness.

*This image is copyright of its original author

WaveRiders · 02-24-2015, 09:33 AM

EVELYN ARTHUR SMYTHIES

“ … served in the Indian Forest Service from 1908 until 1940, based in Nainital. He was Chief Conservator of the Forest of Nepal from 1940 through 1947…”

What does it mean? The following is what happened and what in my opinion might have implicated.

Smythies was employed by the British Government of India for 32 years. He made a good job and was well respected. At some point in the late 1930s the Maharajah Juddha Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana ruling the Kingdom of Nepal realized he needed an experienced person to manage the Nepal forestry. In 1940 he therefore offered thorough one of his Minister the position of Chief Conservator to Smythies luring him from his at that time current employer (with whom the Maharajah was in good relationship) by offering him a very high salary and a promotion. Smythies, at the end of his professional career, after some time of negotiation of course accepted being eternally grateful to the Maharajah for the great professional opportunity. He therefore secured himself a golden retirement and to demonstrate his gratitude to the Maharajah he immediately started to write a book dedicated to the Maharajah to celebrate and exalt his supposed bravery (the book is completely filled of this servile attitude and the credibility of Smythies inevitably paid a price within the British circles).

I do not absolutely want to blindly discredit Smythies and Smythies (second hand) records as the man was a very good professional and a very well educated man (above I used the word “might have implicated”). However we should keep in mind that his book is in good part based on the memories written in the Maharajah diaries by somebody else. Particularly many of the sensational occurrences have not been experiences by himself. The cut given by Smythies to his book “Big Game Shooting in Nepal” is different from the book narrating the memories of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his hunting records. In this latter book there is much less sensationalism on the feats of the Maharajah and the data included are a true treasure of homogeneous (but not random) hunting records among big cats probably unparalleled and rivalled only at most by those of Almeida for the Pantanal Jaguar and, to a lesser extent, by those of Stevenson-Hamilton for Kruger lion body dimensions (both again homogeneous but not random).

Smythies did not witness the vast majority of Maharajah hunts He started to work for the Maharajah in late 1940 and the book was published in 1942. By that year the Maharajah had been hunting for decades and his largest and heaviest tigers had already been bagged. This was the case for the 705 lb / 10 ft 9 in tiger of which it is evident that Smythies was NOT a witness.

Smythies did not participate to the very most of the hunting stories narrated in his book. He did not personally measure the vast majority of the tigers shot by the Maharajah (if any at all) and he did not even witness most of them being shot (for instance those 3 exceptionally large tigers 10 ft 2 in, 10 ft 5 in and 10 ft 9 inches killed in 3 consecutive days were shot in 1933, 7 years before Smithies joined the Maharajah court).

He is therefore a second hand source and when he writes that “all measurements recorded in this book are round the curves … and are absolutely accurate” or “no exaggeration in possible, as it is written under his (His Highness) personal direction” we do not commit to blindly trust Smithies, but nearly always somebody else (a Maharajah shikar, a Maharajah writer and the Maharajah in person).

However Smythies may in theory have participated to some tiger hunts in Nepal before 1940 as a guest and he definitely did from late 1940 onwards as a Chief Conservator of Nepal Forests, but it is evident from the narration of his book that he is nearly always reporting records and memories written by somebody else (a Maharajah court writer) somewhere else (the Maharajah hunting diaries). It also seems that several of the pictures shown in his book (of which Smythies had copyright) were a donation from the Maharajah. When the Maharajah Juddha Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana (1875-1952, Head of Rana dynasty, Maharajah and Prime Minister of Nepal during 1932-1945) is pictured as still looking not too old (earlier then 66 years old), the picture (or the painting) evidently could not have been taken by Smythies unless in that circumstance he had been invited to the hunt in Nepal from Nainital. The picture with the record 9 ft 8 in tigress and the 10 ft 8 in tiger might have been witnessed by Smythies.

An example of one of the hunts he appears to have attended:

(from Smythies book) On January 17 : “The good luck of this magnificent shoot still held, and bag to-day totally 4 fully-grown tigers all within an inch or two of 10 feet (round the curves).

Therefore hunts bagging male tigers as long as 9 ft 10 in and 9ft 11 in round the curves were considered of good luck.

And even if Smythies measured by himself some of the very largest tigers shot by the Maharajah I remind what Dumbar Brander wrote in his book Wild Animals in Central India in 1923.

*This image is copyright of its original author

CONCLUSION ON SMYTHIES, THE 705 lb WEIGHT AND OTHER RECORDS

The above is what anyone can understand just from the few pages scanned by peter if using, in my opinion, a bit of brain and fair judgment. If one read the whole book (and not only a few parts) it is possible to understand a lot more and apply in case a filter to some information based on individual judgment.

At the end anyone is free to understand what he wants (from the hearth if biased and not driven by science only) and what he can (from the brain). Just to be clear I state that I do not blindly reject Smythies records. My major point is that I do not definitely like at all the servile way he presents them and, even for this attitude, I am definitely cautious in accepting a few of them as fully trustable, in particular the 705 lb individual (the records, not the theoretical possibility for instance that a really exceptional wild Nepalese/Indian male tiger could actually weigh 320 kg particularly if fully gorged, an occurrence however still scientifically far from being ascertained). The 705 lb individual and a few other records are definitely hunting records NOT comparable to those reported by independent professionals and writers like Brander, Hewett and (very) few others as well as those by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar (and not because I am applying two weights and two measurements for Maharajahs as I explained why).

I remind that the largest and biggest tiger from Brander, by far the largest tiger possibly to be considered accurately and reliably measured in historic records has been reported with a head-and-body length of 2210 mm between pegs. It was a truly monster tiger and if he was not a Brander or an Hewett or a Corbett describing him I would definitely reject the hunting record with no hesitation as for me it is a big stretch for my considerations (as for instance the accurate and reliable second and third largest tigers are markedly smaller). This cattle-killer tiger was described as extremely bulky and with a big ridge of fat 100-130 mm deep running all along from the throat to the belly. Yet Brander estimated it at “about 600 lb” (272 kg) giving the feeling that for him it was already an extreme weight to conceive. Now how compare Brander’s largest tiger with the 705 lb Nepal tiger that, additionally, Smythies never saw?

Was Brander somewhat too conservative in the weight estimate (as it appears to me)? Was what reported by a truly honest, trustable and experienced professional and jungle man who saw hundreds of tigers shot in years, late 1800 / early 1900, when there were still plenty animals roaming around the true reality? As I do not believe in the Lockness Monster, Bigfoot, Yeti, Chupacabra and 12+ foot tigers (even if measured over curves) neither now nor 200 years ago I believe it was.

LITERATURE REPORTING THE 705 lb WEIGHT

The 705 lb tiger from Smythies book became known to the very vast majority of the public when Schaller (1967) and then Wood (1972) reported the record as Perry (1964), surprisingly, had missed it. Since then some other authors quoted this weight and some more perhaps will follow.

The importance of what it really means accept it or not is up to anyone to realize it. I do consider the 705 lb record in a few of my analyses under particular circumstances as ultimate tiger weight, but when things start to get serious I refrain using it as well as all hunting records in excess of scientifically proved weights. My scientifically proved weight limit for tigers is the (estimated) not-adjusted 261 kg figure from Smith et al. (1983) or that sort of messy 272+ kg not-adjusted weight coming from the Sauaraha M105 and M026 Nepal tigers in Dinerstein (2003).

By words or in popular and semi-scientific books all zoologists with expertise in big cats never rule out the possibility of existence of exceptionally wild big Bengal tiger weighing now or in the past 300 kg or more. However you will never find a zoologist reporting the 320 kg male tiger from Smythies in a peer-reviewed scientific paper or in a peer-reviewed scientific book clearly stating it is the highest accurate and reliable weight of a wild (Bengal) tiger. And this even knowing that they would not be shot by accepting the record as it is the least of the problem in the very most of circumstances of the professional zoology world.

The point is that by definition only an occurrence recorded by a professional scientist and presented and discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific paper or in a peer-reviewed scientific book is scientific evidence and prove. That is the way science works and being a man of science I fully agree with the procedure of course.

VRATISLAV MAZAK

Vratislav Mazak is the perfect demonstration of how even just some fanaticism can overshadow a clever professional mind. He wanted to demonstrate that the Amur tiger was the largest tiger subspecies and he made everything he could to do that, mixing reliable and unreliable sources, wild and captive specimens, omitting skulls and other data, mixing measurement methods and so on. If a professional zoologist has been able to do that (although during the Cold War and from the other side of the Berlin Wall), it is not a surprise to see what can do the layman in popular contests either in the web and elsewhere.

However I have to say that I do own a lot of my initial scientific knowledge of tigers to Vratislav Mazak and I am therefore grateful to him.

WaveRiders

GrizzlyClaws · 02-24-2015, 09:52 AM

Nevertheless, Amur tiger is still a great cat with great potential, especially it is very prominent in the captivity.

A great cat that can produce the enormous size in the captivity, also with the largest pantherine canine teeth.

Thus, it is always one of the top ranking big cats in my book.

WaveRiders · 02-24-2015, 10:06 AM

(02-23-2015, 09:48 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: 1. The plate looks more like a colored picture than a simple draw. The details are too perfect, so I guess that in fact, it is a photograph. What I still ask to you is the scan of the page where it is mentioned the weight of 705 lb, that is because I normally kept all the images of the records, with special care on the original sources. In this case, I will add that page in my database, together with the plate. I will like to know if the other posters also believe that that "draw" in the plate is probably a colored "photograph" or not; for me, it is just too perfect.

PLATE 22 FROM SMYTHIES BOOK

I realize the immense passion some people like you have for animals (a particular animal as you continuously demonstrate to really hate others and I wonder why because they are creatures that did nothing bad to you). You and some other people have a passion that goes beyond any level of conceivable imagination and that on several occasions in my opinion cause you all to completely forget the reality. I can see only blind passion behind you, so it is not too bad till the level of rudeness and aggression in the web (which I generally always see as a truly coward action) stay controlled. If not passion I could only justify it primarily for commercial reasons, but it is not the case for you.

My advice is that if you want to accept the 705 lb record you do not need to build yourself the illusion that a coloured painting is a coloured photograph. I perfectly know you often want to see the impossible, accept as a scientific prove/evidence something that one cannot and reject evidence that is scientifically accepted and/or proved.

Accept the 705 lb record in your tables and files, be sure that IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, the Journal of Zoology and so on do not care.

WaveRiders

GuateGojira · 02-24-2015, 10:38 AM

(02-24-2015, 10:06 AM)'WaveRiders' Wrote:
(02-23-2015, 09:48 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: 1. The plate looks more like a colored picture than a simple draw. The details are too perfect, so I guess that in fact, it is a photograph. What I still ask to you is the scan of the page where it is mentioned the weight of 705 lb, that is because I normally kept all the images of the records, with special care on the original sources. In this case, I will add that page in my database, together with the plate. I will like to know if the other posters also believe that that "draw" in the plate is probably a colored "photograph" or not; for me, it is just too perfect.

PLATE 22 FROM SMYTHIES BOOK

I realize the immense passion some people like you have for animals (a particular animal as you continuously demonstrate to really hate others and I wonder why because they are creatures that did nothing bad to you). You and some other people have a passion that goes beyond any level of conceivable imagination and that on several occasions in my opinion cause you all to completely forget the reality. I can see only blind passion behind you, so it is not too bad till the level of rudeness and aggression in the web (which I generally always see as a truly coward action) stay controlled. If not passion I could only justify it primarily for commercial reasons, but it is not the case for you.

My advice is that if you want to accept the 705 lb record you do not need to build yourself the illusion that a coloured painting is a coloured photograph. I perfectly know you often want to see the impossible, accept as a scientific prove/evidence something that one cannot and reject evidence that is scientifically accepted and/or proved.

Accept the 705 lb record in your tables and files, be sure that IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, the Journal of Zoology and so on do not care.

WaveRiders

Sincerely, I don’t understand your aggression toward me. Since the topic about the food intake on tiger, where I proved how biased and mistaken you where, you have attacked me with no reason, and now, the clear attempt to prove yourself like a “man of science”, is simple stupid.

You say that you think that the aggression on the internet is “a truly coward action”, then you are one very hypocrite person, as this is the first thing that you have done to Peter in post No. 411.

Waveriders say: “Your allegation that because V. Mazak appears to have been biased therefore some modern zoologists are likely biased too and in the most stupid and amateur way (cheating on measurements) when and if they concentrate on a particular animal is very bizarre.”

Other attack from you against Peter: “You pose questions but you did not try to find educated answers and just leave the allegation.”

So, you want to be treated with seriousness? Then, play fair and don’t acts like a hypocrite here.

Now, you say that I “hate” other animals??? Could you “please” show me what animals do I hate????

Latter, you say that I have a “blind passion”. Why??? Just because I ASKED to other posters what they believe about the image? Just because I believe it is a picture and not a paint? I was just asking a question, but you are trying to start a war.

Finally, IF you say that you defend Science, why in ALL your posts in AVA and here, you have NEVER showed single piece of evidence??? You only write your “ideas” and “assumptions”, based ONLY in your own biased brain. You constantly insulted to all the posters, saying that you are more intelligent just because you are a “man of science”. However, your own words discover your lie, as IF you were a man of science, you will show proves, not only words. Like I told you before, I have NOTHING to hide, so that is why I show my data, but you, what have you done??? This is the Internet, and anyone can say anything, so your testimony (that you are some type of “scientist”) means nothing to me.

So, you want to start a war??? Check AVA, you should know that I always win against your kind, because people like you are only screams and attacks, but at the end, the Science and the evidence always prove me right, like usual.

Your move…..

GrizzlyClaws · 02-24-2015, 10:51 AM

Guate, do you know why Warsaw keeps insisting that the 19 years old killed Amur tiger back in last year was the same Baikal?

He has provided a list of the studbook, and that 19 years old Baikal was indeed having a coincidence of being transferred to the Assiniboine park back in 2009, same as the 850 pounds Baikal.

Hence, he started to insist that these two tigers were the same specimen, and the 850 pounds Baikal doesn't exist.

However, there are only very few specimens listed in this studbook, so I doubt it is a complete one.

In conclusion, there could have two Baikal specimens being transferred to the Assiniboine park back in 2009, one is the 850 lbs specimen we known, also being born around 1997, and the other one should be the one that got killed in 2014 and being born in 1995, and the size of this specimen was also average.

sanjay · 02-24-2015, 11:03 AM

Hello WaveRiders and Guate , Please don't start any fight here, It is the one of the best thread with valuable information.
WaveRiders, You may be right with your statements, But unless you are providing your scientific proof, don't lashes on other poster. Every person has his own preference and way of accepting things. You can not force any other to accept your statements.

We like your posts and want to see lot of great information about Lions (I assume you are better in this) and other animals, indulging in fight with other poster only diminish your value. We all are now mature people and need to discuss on much serious issues than fighting.
The aim of this forum is to be best information provider about wildlife and encourage to join other well known animal experts (as you, peter and guate mentioned). We don't have place for childish behavior.
Hope you will understand my concerns.
Good luck.

tigerluver · 02-24-2015, 11:23 AM

@GrizzlyClaws, I personally don't have any info on big Baikal other than KingThera's email. His source is open and I'm sure anyone could contact the facility for confirmation, adding to reliability. KingThera's been a good, reliable poster before anyhow, so I personally don't doubt him. By that forum post, the poster stated he would contact them but did not provide any followup so I can't judge. I can't remember the details of how it was concluded that the two Baikals were different, but I think multiple posters confirmed it.

WaveRiders. One, we're seeing some Freudian projection in your attacks against posters here, though I'm sure three witnesses is enough for the point to get across. Please keep it to information and not posters.

I'd argue your definition of peer-reviewed as I've explained before. Beyond the fact that books are not peer-reviewed like a paper anyhow, Sunquist and Sunquist, the top of the line in felid science, cited 325 kg (a value which has so and so sources in terms of reliability at best) as end range for the Amur tiger. I guess with the logic you've applied, 325 kg wild Amur tigers it is.

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?