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)
|
 
We have only four pictures of Balinese tigers in the flesh, and I don't trust in the prepared skins at the museums as they can loose hair with time (all are very old) and treatment.
We know that Sumatran and Javanese tigers do have/had a ruff around the neck, so there is no doubt that Balinese tigers probably have it too, as they are of the same subspecies, with only minor regional variations.
Both Javanese tiger and Bali tiger are the pure descendants of the Ngandong tiger, only the Sumatran is a hybrid descendant who also contains the gene from the Mainland tiger.
Mabel only used sumatrans and bengals to my recollection.
I never recall her using any other, the Male Jag and Two tigers with it are Sumatrans for sure. 
I think this article may have been touched on, but it wasn't posted (A comparison of food habits and prey preference of Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) at three sites in the Russian Far East):
I have a challenge to all the posters. I am making a comparison between the mainland Bengal tigers and the Sundarbans tigers. So, I need the best side view image of a Sundarbans specimen possible.
If you have or had found an image that full the requirements for the comparison (judge the previous comparisons), please post it here and it will be used.  Let's see yous images... 
Guate, Its hard to find clear and clean side image of sunderban tigers.
The best I get are from B2 and other tiger thread post no 983 on page 66 by tigerluver pots no 944 on page 63 by me And i think this one from wikipedia  *This image is copyright of its original author
I got it, i have the side view of a male Sundarbans tiger!!! Check this out:
 *This image is copyright of its original author Now, I only need to change the face for another male tiger from the Sundarbans in a side view, which I have a few and it will be ready for the comparison. Wow, I never though that tiger comparisons will be so difficult. 
TIGER SUBSPECIES - PART 1 ('Der Tiger', V. Mazak, 1983)
In the thread on Panthera tigris sondaica, Guate asked for a few scans of the book mentioned above. They were posted. When he said he wanted more, I decided to post the scans in this thread. Remember the book of V. Mazak ('Der Tiger') was published in Germany. It is in German, that is. If you want to read all of it, you'll have to use the translator. As to the measurements in the book. Mazak only used measurements taken 'between pegs'. He measured all skulls himself. The tables he constructed are used in many books. The overview still is the best I saw. Here we go. 01 - The Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) On the left page, Mazak wrote he only used measurements of tigers measured 'between pegs' for his book. The right page is on the Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris). The photograph of an adult male Indian tiger (captured near Bhopal) in the Prague Zoo was taken by Mazak himself:  *This image is copyright of its original author 02 - The Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) - continuation The photographs on the left are from the book of Bengt Berg ('Tiger und Mensch', 1934). Berg was one of the first to use camera traps to take photographs of wild tigers:  *This image is copyright of its original author 03 - The Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) - continuation The tiger in the photograph is a captive male from the Regent's Zoo (sixties of the last century, London). He had a small mane. The skull on the right shows the profile typical for many wild male Indian tigers:  *This image is copyright of its original author 04 - The Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) - continuation On the left page is another skull of a wild male Indian tiger. The right page is the start of the Indochinese tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti). The tiger (a male) in the photograph was caught in the northern part of Vietnam and was kept in the Paris zoo. The photograph was taken in 1968:  *This image is copyright of its original author 05 - The Indochinese tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti) The skin on the left page is that of a male tiger from the northern part of Vietnam. The skull (all drawings were made by Mazak) is that of a male tiger from Quang Tri (Vietnam), 1968. I remember there was an expedition to what was then North-Vietnam in 1968. Mazak wasn't there, but his collegues returned to Prague with a lot of information. The table with the skull measurements is topped by the same skull others mentioned (well before WWII). I'm not sure, but think this skull is from Johore (the southern tip of Malaysia). If correct, it shows Malaysia had large tigers a century ago. Mazak was the one who proposed to distinguish between Indian tigers and those in southeast Asia. His proposal was accepted in 1968. From then on, tigers in southeast Asia were Panthera tigris corbetti (named after Jim Corbett):  *This image is copyright of its original author 06 - The Chinese tiger (Panthera tigris amoyensis) The photographs are from captive males in the Prague zoo (bottom left) and the Berlin zoo (bottom right). The tiger on the left was from central China, whereas the one on the right was from south China:  *This image is copyright of its original author 07 - The Chinese tiger (Panthera tigris amoyensis) - continuation The skull (right) belonged to a male from northern China:  *This image is copyright of its original author 08 - The Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata) The table (top left) has skull measurements of China tigers. It's the only table I know of. Based on what I have on the Java tiger, I'd say China tigers had slightly longer skulls, although those from Java could have been relatively wider. Although Mazak only measured 3 female skulls, one of them is as long as that of an average Amur tigress. Remarkable. I have reliable information on the size of China tigers and do not doubt they were larger than Java tigers. They also showed more variation, but this was to be expected (China is much larger than Java). Also remember Java is an island. Islands mammals often show little individual variation. Same in Javan tigers. The Caspian tiger compares to the China tiger in that the region they inhabited was very large. I do not doubt there was quite a bit of regional variation. The typical location regarding Caspian tigers is Mazanderan (northern Iran):  *This image is copyright of its original author
Thank you very much @peter, this is very valuable information for our databases but also for my comparative images.
 There is a lot to digest now, but for the moment I would like to confirm that in fact, the largest Indochinese tiger skulls reported in literature came from Malaysia. Tigers in this area are not the dwarfs that most people believe, in fact, the largest specimens are as large as average sized Bengal-Amur tigers. The few available weights (reported by Khan, as far I remember) came from females and immature males (this based in the fact that on average, the recorded females are larger and heavier than the males (sic!)), and the only two weights reported by Dr Kawanishi (110 and 130 kg) are estimations, not real weights. He believes that Malayan tigers are of the same size than Sumatran ones, and this has been copy-paste in most of the internet, but the true is that only one true weight is available (120 kg) as is not from a large specimen. On the other hand, the largest wild caught male in modern records was of the same size than the largest male hunted in the old days, measured between pegs (over 290 cm). This shows that although Malayan tigers are smaller on average, the do reach relative large sizes and this is also supported by the large skulls recorded in the area (over 360 mm, just like the largest Caspian tigers!!!  ).
Guate says: Peter was right, that bears in my comparison is too large but if I change it to a smaller and more realistic form, Warsaw will die of diarrhea!
Personally, with the tiger being equally as large if not even bigger than the grizzly, imo this simply proves the big cat enthusiasts wrong in their old assumption that a bear has need of a substantial size advantage to defend himself against the big cat. Obviously, at size parity the bear can hold his own. (10-03-2015, 01:53 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Guate says: Peter was right, that bears in my comparison is too large but if I change it to a smaller and more realistic form, Warsaw will die of diarrhea! At the size parity, even the fight to death would be rare, and most of time the predators just try to avoid each other unless the food source is rare during the winter, but the bears usually hibernate during that time, so the chance of conflict decreases again. (10-03-2015, 01:53 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Guate says: Peter was right, that bears in my comparison is too large but if I change it to a smaller and more realistic form, Warsaw will die of diarrhea! AMUR TIGER SIZE After the debate on methods was concluded recently, the question is how long Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) really are. The method used to measure them is a new one and the results, I think, can't be compared to measurements taken 'between pegs'. It seems to be close, but not quite. Based on what I read and my experience with measuring, I would deduct 2-4 inches for now (about 3-4 for males). This means males would average not 294 cm. but about 284-287 cm. 'between pegs' in total length (and 185-190 cm. in head and body length). I didn't find any reason to adjust the weight Guate mentioned (about 190 kg. or 420 pounds). Could be a bit more, as Miquelle thought males average 430 pounds. AMUR BROWN BEAR SIZE Goodrich said males average close to 270 kg. (596 pounds). The 10 males in Kucherenko's table avereraged 264 kg. (583 pounds). But the two adult males mentioned in a recent article were 180 and 235 kg. in autumn (when they, weightwise, would have been at their max). If we use all three averages (270, 264 and 207,5 kg.) and add the same 'weight' to them, we get to 247 kg. (545 pounds). But it isn't known if this is a year-round average. Based on what we have now, I think the year-round average for males could be a bit lower than that (closer to 500-520 pounds). As to length. Males average 196 cm. 'over contours' and 160-170 cm. when measured in a straight line. A straight line measurement in bears, however, doesn't quite compare to a measurement taken 'between pegs' in big cats in that the skull isn't raised. The animal also isn't stretched. If they would have been measured in the way a big cat is measured, males bears probably average about 170-175 cm. in head and body length, maybe a bit more. CONCLUSIONS For now, using a lot of imagination, I would get to 185-188 cm. in head and body length and 425 pounds for an average male Amur tiger and 173 cm. and 545 pounds for an average male Amur brown bear. The male bear is 12-15 cm. shorter in head and body length. Seen from his perspective, that would be about 8%. He is, however, 120 pounds heavier. Seen from the perspective of the tiger, this is 28,2%. The conclusion is male brown bears are much more robust than male Amur tigers. They also show more variation at the level of individuals and they are taller at the shoulder. I would get to advantage bears. ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN MALES Tigers are more agile and faster than bears. They also have significantly larger (and stronger) upper canines. Pikunov, in an email, wrote there's little to choose between them in strength. Krechmar confirmed in that he said that not one of the two dominates the other in a fysical fight. Also remember that a tiger can pull out of a fight when it isn't going his way. A bear can't. Finally, remember male bears are subject to violent weight changes. If we add experience and inborn instinct in tigers, I would get to advantage tiger. When on two legs, however, the bear has more balance. But the tiger is close in this department and he is taller. Tigers are pullers and holders, enabling them to use their advantage (teeth), but bears are pushers, strikers and crushers. As wrestlers, they are as good or better. If there's one animal able to get out of the hold of a tiger (in a fight between male tigers, they lock and hold on), it's a bear. All in all, I would get to a close fight. Krechmar though a large male bear would get it his way more often than not when it is about food (Vaillant, based on interviews with locals, confirmed large bears are avoided), but in the other weight classes it's is close. Vaillant thought it could be advantage tigers (even delimbing their opponents), but my take is it's too close to call. Bears and tigers apparently agree, as there's very little info on serious fights. My guess is they meet and fight at times, but all-out's seem to be very rare. Too risky. PEER-REVIEWED DOCUMENTS How close are the ideas discussed above? Some months ago, two new studies were discussed in this thread. The conclusion is bears are an important food source for tigers, especially in summer. There's no question that bears, weightwise, contribute more to Amur tigers diets than was assumed. This means not all bears hunted were small. Judging from the percentages, they had to be larger than was assumed. But how about the risks? Biologists now think they could have been overestimated. At least, tigers seem to have a different opinion. Time for adjustments, biologists concluded. This means they think they could have been wrong. Important. TO FINISH WITH I can hear you say that adult male bears would remain a big problem for any tiger no matter what. I agree, but it also is a fact male tigers take risks at a regular basis. They are pro's in this department. They have to if they want to prevent hunting rabbits all day long every day. Energy and costs. And then there is hibernation and a significant loss of weight in bears. I really wonder if weight is as important as we think. The reason is tigers (not only males, but females and immatures as well) interested in bears hunt them in summer in particular. In summer, your average bear is heavier than in spring. It therefore isn't about weight and size, but availability. It's possible that the observation of Schleyer (specialists usually have about a hundred pounds advantage on the bears they hunt) will be confirmed at some stage, but the two recent studies clearly say tigers do not hunt small bears only. It's also clear that brown bears are included. The percentages mentioned by Seryodkin (brown bears constitute 1-1,5% of Amur tiger diet) could be inaccurate. If not, the conclusion is there are significant regional differences. This was confirmed in the last study discussed (the one I got from Ursus arctos middendorffi). Anyhow. Your guess is at good as mine. But I will return to tiger subspecies first.
@
The bear fang is proportionally thicker at the lateral measurement, but the tiger fang is proportionally thicker at the anterior measurement.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Couldn't agree with you more @peter.
Especially in the advantages department for both species. It doesn't surprise me that a Tiger will have bears in its diet more than the latter, Tigers are hyper carnivores, bears are omnivores, their weapons are substantial, don't get me wrong, but they still serve multiple purposes, while a tigers serve one purpose. Maybe that is why a Tiger hunts bears while a bear steals a Tigers kill. Both are very capable fighters and hunters, hence why an outcome between similar sized individuals is a coin flip. Nice write up and info shared. Thanks |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |