ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

Amnon242\ dateline='\'1428437138' Wrote:

peter\ dateline='\'1428397296' Wrote:  Todays tigers, as a result of isolation and pressure, seem to compare to Sumatran tigers. If they reach the size of an average Sumatran tiger at all. Remarkable. 

 

In Zoo Prague they have 4 malayan tigers (2 male) and 3 sumatrans (1 male). Malayan tigers are obviously larger (both genders). But maybe the data on wild specimen say someting else... 

I saw a table on captive Malayan tigers indicating they were longer and taller than captive Sumatran tigers, but it has to be stated that the information was based on smallish samples. Most tables had weight estimates as well. In the end, every assessment depends on large samples.

Captive Sumatran females, as far as I know, range between 77-152 kg. Although most skulls of wild females range between 270,00 - 280,00 mm., I measured a few skulls very close to 300,00 mm. in greatest total length, meaning they compared to an average Amur tigress for greatest total length. I also measured skulls of wild tigresses of both P.t. sumatrae and P.t. corbetti. The conclusion was the differences are very limited. Corbetti is a slighty larger animal overall, but it is about Malaysia in particular and the information I have strongly suggests that today's wild Malayan tigers, although a bit longer, roughly compare to today's Sumatran tigers for weight. Compared to other subspecies, Sumatran tigers have relatively large skulls.

I've read many Dutch books, but didn't get to the magazins stored in museums yet. Hoogerwerf did and he wrote large Sumatran male tigers shot in the last century exceeded 9 feet 'over curves' every now and then. One male shot by a well-known hunter (Pieters) was 10.2 'over curves' and weighed 185 kg. Although he was exceptional, there's no question wild males, in contrast to what V. Mazak (1983) concluded, exceeded 140 kg. at times. They still do (referring to male tiger 'Slamet').

Wild tigers, in contrast to wild lions, often are more muscular and heavier than their captive relatives. Many who had experience with wild and captive tigers of the same subspecies concluded captive tigers often are a mere shadow of their wild counterparts. I also noticed the difference between wild and captive is more pronounced in some subspecies than in others. For some reason, the difference in Sumatran tigers is quite remarkable. Same for Indian tigers, but most of these now live in well-stocked reserves, whereas Sumatrans are involved in a war for space.  

I do not doubt that a large Malaysian male tiger would be a bit longer and taller than a large Sumatran male tiger, but I wonder if they reach 350 pounds empty. Locke ('The Tigers of Terengganu') thought they didn't. I'm sure some males in Sumatra would. Different animals. Sumatran tigers, and males in particular, seem a bit shorter and stockier. They also have relatively large skulls.

This is a captive male Sumatran tiger. Stocky:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here are two photographs of wild male Sumatran tigers first posted by Phatio:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is one of the largest Sumatran tigers shot by Denning. This tiger killed a male sun bear:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another tiger ('The Wanderer') he hunted for a very long time:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is a photograph of a lame man-eater with quite a reputation. Again notice the relatively large skull:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is tiger 'Slamet'. I read different reports. In one, he was 148,2 kg. and in the other 150 kg. My guess is he was 148,2 kg. when he was sedated and weighed. Another wild adult male with a relatively large skull: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

One more to finish with:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is the longest Locke shot in Terengganu (southeast Malaysia):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here's a photograph my brother shot in the Zoologischer Garten Berlin last year. P.t. corbetti, but I don't know if they were from Malaysia. Although quite tall and long, the male was about 150 kg. In general appearance, they compare to the tigers shot by Locke:  

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here's the Jerangau man-eater (Locke). He was exactly 8 feet 'between pegs' and quite stocky:

*This image is copyright of its original author

A century ago, male tigers well exceeding 9 feet straight were shot every now and then in Johore. The former Sultan of Johore published a number of photographs of the tigers he shot. Although some were quite robust, I didn't see a single Malaysian tiger that compared to the Sumatran tigers above. The reason is tigers in Sumatra and Malaysia are quite different. In general, one could say they're moderately long and quite athletic in Malaysia. Quite many male Sumatran tigers, on the other hand, are short and robust. 

Perak, in the north of Malaysia, is a different story. Male tigers often combine length with robustness and, sizewise, seem to be quite close to Indian tigers. I remember a poster on AVA. He was from Malaysia, had visited Perak, talked to rangers, saw big tracks and was quite dazzled. Large tigers, he concluded. Reply