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)
|
The best source on length, weight and skulls of big cats in general (at the level of species or subspecies) is V. Mazak (1983). The information I have, however, suggests he was a bit conservative (meaning the range is a bit wider than he suggests). This, no doubt, was a result of the mistake he made when he started (referring to him quoting Barclay and Baikov). After he admitted he had been misled, he decided for his own measurements only (skulls mostly). He could have been a bit preferenced when he selected measurements taken 'between pegs' (meaning he included some and not others for unknown reasons) and it also is a fact he didn't distinguish between wild and captive (regarding Amur tigers in particular), but Mazak, in spite of that, is the one closest to what I found.
Another way to get to a reliable result is to read everything you can and select measurements taken 'between pegs'. There are many, many books, meaning it would take a lot of time. The advantage is the table you will produce will be based on primary sources only. Another advantage is a wider range and the possibility to distinguish between age groups. My proposal is to use V. Mazak's information for a general description on size for now. When you have collected enough data from books and articles, you have a new database. This is the one you should use to get to a table yourself. 
I agree that Dr Vratislav Mazák is, by far, the best source for skull size (he said that in his document of 1981), but about weight and length, I think his data is outdated and mixed.
The principal problem is that he don't quoted many of his sources. I don't know if in his book "Der Tiger" he do it, but in the document of 1981, he did not. Other thing is that he mixed captive with wild specimens, which creates confusion about the origin of many of his weights and length. Finally, the modern studies on Bengal and Amur tigers have new figures that most be used instead of those from him. From my part, in the case of the Amur tiger, the data from the documents of the Siberian Tiger Project, together with the data from The Amur Tiger Programme (summarized in my tables) are the most reliable. On the Bengal tiger side, the data from modern literature most change the ridiculous top figure of 258 kg created by the bad conversion of Mazák for the record of Hewett (570 lb = 259 kg in the best approximation). That is why I think that the sizes quoted by Dr Karanth in 2003-2013, despite the fact that they don't came from the sources that he quotes, are more accurate than those of Mazák. For the other subspecies, Mazák is among our few sources, but in the case of the Javanese and Balinese tigers, I am completely disagree with him, as the few available specimens suggest larger weights than those "estimated" by him, remember that only 1 weight is known for a Javanese male tiger and there is not a single figure available for the Bali population.
Just to show what I mean with "measuring a tiger with a tape along the contours of the back in a straight line", here is the famous video of the young tiger relocated in Nepal:
There you can see what I mean. By the way, check that while measuring the tiger was important for some people, other ones just put out the measuring tape like if it was not important.  (05-11-2015, 05:10 AM)'peter' Wrote:(05-09-2015, 07:54 PM)'Pantherinae' Wrote: It's a Tigress.  *This image is copyright of its original author Heres a better photo of her. Kanwar Took it
Looks like this girl right here
 *This image is copyright of its original author (05-11-2015, 08:40 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I agree that Dr Vratislav Mazák is, by far, the best source for skull size (he said that in his document of 1981), but about weight and length, I think his data is outdated and mixed. Some conclusions on Mazak: - He's the first who collected reliable information on tigers in a book interesting for the general public, in this way opening a door for many. - He's the first who tried to get to a kind of overview regarding the general size of different subspecies. I agree he was not accurate regarding the size of Amur tigers as a result of mixing wild with captive, but his sample was so small he perhaps felt he had no other option. His opinion on the size of Amur tigers was based on information he got from prime (Russian) sources. They said wild male Amur tigers ranged between 170-270 kg. a century ago. Mazak also was the one who found and contacted one of Jankowski's sons and the one who published the photograph of the immense tiger shot in 1943 by Jankowski's sons, thus proving some freaks did get to a great size in the recent past. I also agree Mazak was a bit tentative regarding the size of Indonesian tigers, but one has to remember there wasn't a lot available back then. My guess is he used skulls to get to an assessment. Java tigers were a bit larger than those on Sumatra and there's no question Bali tigers were smaller than both. He could have started on the size of freak specimens in his book, but a zoologist has to inform the public on the average size of a subspecies. It is a fact Indonesian tigers are smaller than mainland tigers. How much smaller is anybody's guess. Maybe the great book of the Sunquist's is more informative, but one has to remember it is based on recent information. In spite of that advantage, they couldn't resist the temptation to quote from Heptner and Sludski. They, like Mazak, referred to Barclay and Baikov and their giant tigers. Mazak was severely critisized for using the information of Baikov and Barclay, but Heptner and Sludskij were not. Neither were the Sunquists (...). Different standards, so it seems. Baikov, by the way, wasn't dismissed by all. His 560-pound male shot close to the Korean border still stands. The other large tigers he mentioned, however, were classified as 'unreliable'. I really don't know what to make of it. The only thing I know is information on size in most books is a mess and it won't change until someone is prepared to invest a lot of time. The first thing we need to do is measure skulls in museums. Large samples. After that, everything considered reliable has to be reviewed. Than new tables have to be made with distinctions between immature, young adult and mature. After a few centuries of science, it shouldn't be a big ask. I had a go at three subspecies and noticed the range in size in two of the three was remarkable (the Bali sample was too small to get to distinctions). I also noticed significant differences in size between immatures, young adults and mature animals. My guess is I will see a similar result in other subspecies. Same for the other roaring cats. If I use the results of the tables I constructed to get to an assessment on what I read in many books, the conclusion is Mazak, in spite of the problems discussed, is the one who got close. My guess is the reason is he is the only one who tried to get to a new database. 
I have read that the mortality rate of tiger cubs is very high, perhaps from 50% to 75% of tiger cubs never become adults. What are the natural threats to tiger cubs?
@Pckts did Kanwar know who this tiger was or did he just say it was a tigress? it's not that I don't think Kanwar knows how to sex tigers, and in Kaziranga I would understand it would be difficult since some femalse does seem extreamly bulky, but this tiger does really seem to have testicles. might just be me, but I tried to zoom in on it. and you can see you're self.
 *This image is copyright of its original author it does seem like balls
(05-18-2015, 03:30 AM)'Pantherinae' Wrote: @Pckts did Kanwar know who this tiger was or did he just say it was a tigress? it's not that I don't think Kanwar knows how to sex tigers, and in Kaziranga I would understand it would be difficult since some femalse does seem extreamly bulky, but this tiger does really seem to have testicles. might just be me, but I tried to zoom in on it. and you can see you're self. Its a Tigress! I showed him the picture which he took and he confirmed it with the words that I posted. He is absolutely positive its a tigress. You looking at a blurry zoomed in image that shows nothing and trying to say it's a tiger over the guy who actually took the photo is pretty ridiculous, tbh. Its a tigress, end of the story. Don't believe me, feel free to ask him yourself. Kanwar Deep Juneja"Hi *****, this running tigress is a female of course" (05-17-2015, 02:35 PM)'brotherbear' Wrote: I have read that the mortality rate of tiger cubs is very high, perhaps from 50% to 75% of tiger cubs never become adults. What are the natural threats to tiger cubs?Hello Brotherbear, here is your answer, from Dr Karanth himself (in his last document of 2013):  *This image is copyright of its original author Check the percentages, this are the correct ones in well managed areas. But in poor quality habitat (low prey and poaching), the percentages are higher. Greetings. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
We have to add that brown bears pose a threat to cubs and immature tigers in eastern Russia.
Last year, a number of young tigers were released from a new rehab centre. The region in which they were released had few, if any, adult tigers, but bears are way more numerous and difficult to avoid. The young tigers wore collars, enabling biologists to monitor their progress. They did well, but the boars they killed apparently attracted bears. Although they were able to avoid them most of the time, there was at least one confrontation. Male tiger Boris, when still younger than 2 years of age, killed a 3-year old brown bear last year, but a fight can go both ways. Heptner and Sludskij described an incident in which a young male Amur tiger was killed by a brown bear near Chabarowsk in 1956. The drawing N.N. Kondakov was based on a photograph taken by Krivopusk:  *This image is copyright of its original author Below is a scan in which the incident is described. Here's a brief translation: Judging from the traces in the snow, a tigress with a large male cub killed a wild boar and then moved on. When he was on his own, the young tiger was challenged by a brown bear interested in his boar. There was a fight, in which the bear was victorious. After killing the tiger, the bear ate the wild boar. When he had finished the boar, he started on the tiger. When consuming him, the bear was disturbed by humans and left:  *This image is copyright of its original author The age of the young tiger was a bit unclear. Heptner and Sludskij wrote he was about 3 years of age, but V. Mazak thought he was a bit younger. As it is known young Amur tigers leave their mother when they are about 18 months of age, chances are the young male was less then 2 years old when he fought the bear. There are other studies suggesting young tigers could have stayed with their mother until well over 2 years of age some decades ago, but the study published by, amongst others, L. Kerley, is the most recent one. 
Wonderful article peter and guate. Also In India Dhole (Indian wild dog) poses some threat to tiger cubs
(05-19-2015, 09:56 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: Wonderful article peter and guate. Also In India Dhole (Indian wild dog) poses some threat to tiger cubs Even a Rock Python, Any Venomous Snake, Jackal/Wolf, Sloth Bear, Crocodile, Leopard, Any herbivore large enough to kill a cub etc. All would pose threats to young cubs |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 8 Guest(s) |