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)
|
 (10-03-2015, 08:30 PM)peter Wrote: AMUR TIGER SIZE Well, it is fair to remember that only three tigers had stomach content during its capture, at least this is what the reports showed. This means that over 90% of the other specimens had little or no stomach content (let's remember that Amur tigers eat less often, because of they low prey base). So, the figure of 190 kg for males and 121 kg for females stand. Now, on the size side, I think it is unfair to discard the measurements presented by the Siberian Tiger Project. Although the email of Dr Miquelle suggest that some press was made on the tape, that was probably minimum and just to sustain the tape, not pressing on the curves to enlarge the size like the old hunters. Check this image again:  *This image is copyright of its original author They do press the tape but just to sustain it as they are following the contour. At the end, they measured the straight line between the nose to the root of tail. I have found an article in the JBNHS write by Hugh Murray, that suggest the use of a very similar technique and the result is just a difference of 1 to 1.5 inches (2.5 to 4 cm) between this method and that one "between pegs". Check it:  *This image is copyright of its original author So, in this case, the "corrected" total length "between pegs" of the male Amur tigers would be about c.290 cm and a head-body of c.190 cm, still similar to the Bengal tigers. Is important to not ignore the fact that scientists are not measuring the animals to found "record specimens", so there is no reason to press the tape the same number of times like the old hunters, Dr Miquelle state it clearly, read the email again. 
Peter, great information as usual. Grizzly Claws, yes, the tiger definitely has stronger jaws armed with more devastating pure-carnivore teeth. However, the jaws of a grizzly can do their fair share of damage as well. As for paws and claws, those of the big cats are designed to grasp, hold, and to pull down powerful heavy ungulates. The paws and claws of the grizzly are designed mainly as shovels. As weapons, which can do the greatest damage is debatable.
I recently watched the documentary, "Land of 10,000 Grizzlies" which is about Kamchatka. It was said that after about 100 years, we ( USA ) can only now be allowed to go in and study these locations. I am in hopes of more information. 
Many Amur Brown bears have very long sharp claws, and it is arguable more devastating than the claws of the big cats which mainly use to hook the preys.
I will show you later with some pics.
The Amur Brown bears might have larger fangs than their North American cousins, but they also have shorter claws.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (10-04-2015, 05:19 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(10-03-2015, 08:30 PM)peter Wrote: AMUR TIGER SIZE 1 - THE METHOD USED TO MEASURE TIGERS THEN AND NOW I knew about the letter of H. Murray to the JBNHS, Guate. The method he used, however, is different from the method used in India (Nagarahole), Nepal (Royal Chitwan) and Russia (Sichote-Alin). When a tiger was measured by Murray, he made " ... one man hold the tape on the point of the nose and another man on the very end of the tail ... ". He then pressed the tape " ... down into the hollow of the back, thereby increasing the length by an inch or an inch and a half ... ". This means the distance between the point of the nose and the end of the tail was measured in a straight line with the tape (apart from the two points mentioned) not pressed to the body. It was Murray himself who pressed the tape down into the hollow of the back. This means the tape was pressed to the body at three points. Almost a measurement taken 'between pegs', but not quite. The method used in India, Nepal and Russia today is different. Ullas Karanth, Sunquist and Miquelle all wrote a tiger is measured along the contours of the spine. This only is possible when the tape is pressed to the body (the spine) at all points. A measurement taken in this way requires different people and a lot of accuracy. A century ago, in northern India, tigers were measured in exactly the same way (see the part in green):  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEASUREMENT TAKEN 'OVER CURVES' AND A MEASUREMENT TAKEN 'BETWEEN PEGS' A CENTURY AGO The conclusion is the method used in northern India was no different from the method used today. In northern India, the measurement was " ... carried out with extreme accuracy before the tiger was padded ... " ('Jungle Trails in Northern India', Sir John Hewett, 1938, pp. 67). Judging from the information offered by Sunquist, a tiger today also is measured with care. This means the result of a measurement taken in this way a century ago has to compare to the result of a measurement taken in this way today. As for the difference between a measurement taken 'over curves' and a measurement taken 'between pegs'. Here's Hewett again (it is about the part in dark purple on the left page):  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEASUREMENT TAKEN 'OVER CURVES' AND ONE TAKEN 'BETWEEN PEGS' TODAY Hewett and others familiar with both methods concluded " ... that the measurement by the two systems has differed from two to as much as five inches ... " ('Jungle Trails in Northern India', Sir John Hewett, 1938, pp. 68). Two inches is 5,08 cm. and five inches is 12,70 cm. Can we assume it was two inches in a small tigress and five in a large male? No. Hewett didn't write the average difference between both methods in large male tigers was 5 inches. He wrote that the measurements by the two systems differed to " ... as much as five inches ... " (see the quote above). This means that the difference was five inches in some cases and not in others. In his book, Dunbar Brander confirmed the difference between both methods was 3-5 inches. This means Hewett's longest male tigers most probably slightly exceeded 10 feet 'between pegs' in total length. Can we apply this result everywhere regarding measurements taken 'over curves'? No. In Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam, also a century ago, some males were measured in both ways as well. The average difference was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm.). In the longest tiger (10.5 or 317,50 cm.), however, the difference was 7 inches (17,78 cm.). Two more examples. The male Amur tiger V. Mazak's measured in the Prague zoo was 319 cm. in total length when measured 'between pegs' and 337 cm. when measured 'over curves'. A difference of 18 cm. The male Amur tiger I measured was 298 cm. in total length when measured 'between pegs' and 312 cm. in total length when measured 'over curves'. A difference of 14 cm. Why the significant differences in result? The main reason is the method used can be applied in different ways. Hewett wrote a measurement was " ... a matter of some ceremony ... " (see the first scan). If time was invested, the result was accuracy. In other regions, however, things might have been different. Maybe they didn't have the opportunity to invest time in a measurement. Maybe there were more tigers in a beat and maybe they had to go back to camp in time. Maybe those who measured tigers didn't have the experience needed. There are many reasons. 4 - CONCLUSIONS SO FAR a - The method used to measure tigers today is very similar to the method used a century ago in northern India. b - For this reason, the results can be compared. c - The difference between a measurement taken 'between pegs' and one taken 'over curves' ranged between 2-5 inches a century ago. In northern India, not in other regions. I opted for northern India as the standard for the reasons stated above. d - In large male tigers, the difference between a measurement taken 'between pegs' and one taken 'over curves' could be as much as five inches. This, however, doesn't mean that the average difference was five inches. 5 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Anything else before we start 'translating' the results of measurements in India, Nepal and Russia today into the most likely results of measurements taken 'between pegs'? Yes. a - The emails of Miquelle and Sunquist We have to consider the emails of Miquelle and, in particular, Sunquist. Both wrote that the body of the tiger is stretched before he is measured (a), thus reducing the number of curves. Sunquist also wrote that the skull was raised, in this way creating a more or less horizontal line between the skull, the spine and the end of the tail (b). Was this not done in northern India a century ago then? Hewett wrote that a tiger had to be stretched before he was measured 'between pegs' (see the first scan above). There's no reason to assume that tigers were not stretched before they were measured 'over curves', as this is needed in order to get to an accurate measurement. And accurate it was. This is why the difference between both methods was very limited in northern India. I would get to a 'yes' for now. Sunquist's emails suggest that measurements in Nepal were taken with great care. In his opinion, the results more or less compared to the results of measurement taken 'between pegs'. Based on his descriptions, I tend to agree. As tigers in India, Nepal and Russia today are measured in the same way, it is likely the results of measurements compare. However, the problem is this method can be applied in slightly different ways. Maybe Sunquist pressed the tape at some points of the body only, whereas those who measured tigers in Russia, as Miquelle wrote, might have pressed the tape at all points (see the photograph you posted). We don't know. b - My experience In order to get to an answer, I reread the notes I made after I had measured captive big cats some years ago. All were measured 'between pegs'. Three big cats, however, were measured both 'between pegs' and 'over curves'. I also used another method. One could say it was 'discovered' quite by accident when I tried to measure the male Amur tiger 'over curves'. It wasn't easy. Different people are needed to do it right and even then it's very easy to skip or add a few curves on the way. I noticed I tended to skip a few more often than not. Then it was the turn of the others. I noticed they too struggled. I also noticed the results were very different. The reason is this method can be applied in different ways. One needs to be very concentrated and consistent. I noticed most of us made similar mistakes. In this respect, everyone was consistent. Same for the results. This is the reason I decided to measure the tiger in this way too. The results were recorded and the conclusion was this method nearly always yielded very similar results. And what was the name of this method? There was and is no name, but I can describe how it was applied. The tiger was stretched and the skull was raised. Then the (steel) tape was pressed to the tip of the nose, the top of the skull, the tip of the shoulder, the insertion of the tail and, finally, the last bone of the tail. The distance between these points was measured in a straight line, but one has to remember a number of angles were created by pressing the tape to the body at the points mentioned. This is why the cats measured in this way were longer than when measured 'between pegs'. Why did the attempts the measure the male Amur tiger in this way yielded very similar results? The reason was the method was easier to understand and easier to apply. It also didn't take a long time to measure the tiger. I wrote it would make sense to use this method instead of the other ('over curves'), because it was easier to use. This is important when time is a factor. In the way described above, a few curves were created. These, of course, resulted in a longer cat. I repeated the procedure three times and the results, not surprisingly (as this method is easier to apply), were quite similar: the total length was increased by about 3 inches. This was a long male tiger (he was 298 cm. 'between pegs' and 312 cm. 'over curves'), but some captive male Amur tigers can be longer. When measured 'between pegs', the longest can reach a total length between 10.6 (V. Mazak's Prague zoo male Amur tiger was just shy of 10.6) and 10.10. The Sungari River Amur tiger could have been about 10.10 'between pegs'. Why did I never inform our readers about this method and the results? The answer is simple in that it is not an accepted method. I thought I was the first to discover it, but apparently I was wrong. Murray's method was quite close and Sunquist's method also wasn't much different. As the method described by Sunquist is a standard method used in India, Nepal and Russia, it means I should be able to say to what degree the result of a measurement taken in this way differs from a measurement taken 'between pegs'. The male Amur tiger of 298 cm. (when measured 'between pegs') was 3 inches longer when he was measured in the way described above. In a shortish male lion also measured in this way, the difference was 2 inches. But in a long tiger, the difference could have been 4 inches. In my long post on methods mentioned above, I proposed to deduct 1-3 inches from the measurements taken in India, Nepal and Russia. After reading my notes on the captive big cats I measured, I would increase the range to 1-3 inches in females and 2-4 inches in males. In very muscular or very long big cats, the difference could be 4-5 inches or even a bit more. 6 - THE TOTAL LENGTH OF TODAY'S WILD TIGERS MEASURED 'BETWEEN PEGS' (proposal) So how long are today's tigers in India, Nepal and Russia when they would have been measured 'between pegs'? My proposal is to deduct 4 inches for males and 3 inches for females in India and Russia. This means that the total length of males in Nagarahole, when measured 'between pegs', could have been close to 9.5 (287,02 cm.). In Russia, it might have been an inch less (284,48 cm.). For Nepal, where the method described above could have been applied in a slightly different way, I propose to deduct 3 inches for males and 2 inches for females. My proposal regarding the adjustment, as you no doubt noticed, was adapted. In my long post in the thread on methods and measurements I proposed 1-3 inches, whereas it is a bit more in this post. The reason is my notes on the new method I recently read. This resulted in slightly different conclusions. There's also something else to consider. We run a forum. This means we don't want to misinform the public. The size of wild big cats, as Lt.-Col. Stevenson-Hamilton wrote in his book 'Wildlife in South Africa' (J. Stevenson-Hamilton - I have the Panther edition of 1957 - pp. 148), often is exaggerated. I agree. One has to see a big cat of 9 feet and 400 pounds up close to appreciate its size. In spite of deduction of 4 inches, there's no question that male tigers in Nagarahole (9.5 or 287,02 cm. 'between pegs' and 480 pounds or 217 kg. adjusted), Royal Chitwan (at least 9.5 and 488 pounds or 221 kg. adjusted) and Sichote-Alin (9.4 or 284,84 cm. 'between pegs' and 425 pounds or 192,5 kg.) are large animals. At the level of averages, Indian and, especially, Nepal tigers most probably are the largest wild big cats today. Maybe they are a bit longer than suggested, but we don't know. At least, I do not. The reason is the method used today can be applied in slightly different ways. This means it is likely that different people measuring the same tiger will get to different results. It also means the results of this method have to be taken with care. Finally, we don't know how the result of a measurement taken in this way compares to the result of a measurement taken 'between pegs'. There's just too much room for interpretations. Also remember the samples were small in all three regions. Maybe Nagarahole and Nepal tigers are a bit smaller and maybe Amur tigers are a bit larger than we think. Krechmar thinks Russia still has very large tigers and he should know. 7 - THREE TABLES ON THE LENGTH OF WILD MALE INDIAN TIGERS MEASURED 'OVER CURVES' A CENTURY AGO In order to be as complete as possible, the post is concluded with three tables also posted in the thread on methods and measurements. This will allow those interested to get to a few conclusions on the length and weight of Indian tigers then (a century ago) and now. a - Northern India and Nepal The tigers actually weighed averaged 291,96 cm. (about 9.7). Those not weighed averaged 300,87 cm. (9.10 and a half). Five Nepal male tigers shot in an unmolested region averaged 311,15 cm. (almost 10.3). Those weighed averaged 435,90 pounds and 291,86 cm. in total length 'over curves'. Based on the difference between those over 440 pounds and those that fell short of that mark, I decided for a few extrapolations. The result was an average of 480-490 pounds for all adult male tigers in this region. More than a century later, the adjusted average for 7 males in Royal Chitwan was 488 pounds. The conclusion is there is no significant difference between then and now in northern India and Nepal:  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam The Maharajah of Cooch Behar provided the best data ever on wild tigers. His sample also is quite large. As for the results. The male tigers actually weighed were a bit longer than those weighed in northern India and Nepal. They also were heavier. This, again, suggests a strong correlation between total length and weight in male tigers in India. For additional confirmation, have a look at those over 440 pounds and those below that mark. The conclusion is longer tigers were significantly heavier. Were Cooch Behar tigers larger than those in northern India? No. They were a bit (about 4 cm.) shorter. If all tigers in the table on northern India would have been weighed, the average would have been 480-490 pounds, as opposed to less than 460 (say 450-460) for Cooch Behar. Here's the table on Cooch Behar tigers:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - Northwest India, Nepal, Assam and the Deccan compared The Deccan sample is both small and very old (an century and a half). Deccan tigers were a trifle shorter and not as heavy as those just south of the Himalayas. But they too show a remarkable difference between heavy tigers and others. Those over 420 pounds were about 5 inches longer and 63 pounds heavier than others. Same as in tigers in northern India but a bit less outspoken, which most probably is a result of their smaller size. One of those who hunted in the Deccan (Brig.-Gen. R.G. Burton) wrote different books about his experiences. His longest tiger, a very heavy male (well over 500 pounds), taped 9.8 'between pegs'. He didn't believe in 10-footers, but he was wrong. In central and northern India, they were seen and shot every now and then. Same for Nilgiris, south of the Deccan. I think the general selected one of the regions were tigers were a bit smaller. Bad luck. Nagarahole tigers, by the way, were quite large animals, then and now. This is a tiger known as 'Old One Eye'. He was shot in the Nilgiris and taped 11 feet 'over curves'. Estimated weight 700 pounds. But in this case a severe adjustment would not have been entirely out of place:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's the table on northern India, Cooch Behar and the Deccan:  *This image is copyright of its original author 8 - CONCLUSIONS a - The method used to measure tigers today is very similar to the method used a century ago in northern India ('over curves'). My guess is the results of the measurements can be compared. b - In northern India, those familiar with both methods ('over curves' and 'between pegs') concluded the difference between both methods ranged between 2-5 inches. Although it is more than likely that the difference was more outspoken in long tigers (males), the average difference is unclear. c - Does this mean one has to deduct 2-5 inches from the length of today's tigers (2 for females and 5 for males) in order to get to the length measured 'between pegs'? My guess is no. The main reason is in the detailed emails of Sunquist. He wrote the result of a measurement taken in the way he described would almost compare to the result of a measurement taken 'between pegs'. My guess is he could be close. I measured a large male Amur tiger in three different ways. When measured 'between pegs', he was 298 cm. in total length (head and body length 194 cm.). When measured 'over curves', he was 312 cm. When measured in the way described by Sunquist, he was 305-306 cm. (about 3 inches longer than when measured 'between pegs'). Based on this, one could make a case for an average difference of 3 inches in a male tiger similar in length to those measured in India, Nepal and Russia. On the other hand. It isn't clear if the method described by Sunquist was used in the same way in India and Russia. It seems likely (Ullas Karanth wrote the method used in these regions is a standard method), but we are not quite sure. Furthermore, one has to remember that tigers in Russia, Chitwan and India are large animals, with males not seldom exceeding 9.6 (289,58 cm.) in total length (measured 'between pegs'). Although this means that the average difference between a measurement taken 'between pegs' and a measurement taken in the way described by Sunquist most likely is close to 3 inches in males, we want to prevent misinforming the public. For these reasons, I propose to deduct not 3, but 4 inches for males (3 inches for females) in Russia and India and 3 inches for males in Nepal (2 for females). This means that male tigers in Russia and India most probably average 9.4-9.5 in total length 'between pegs'. Nepal tigers could be a bit longer. d - There's no question that male tigers in India (480 pounds adjusted) and Nepal (488 pounds adjusted) are heavier than in Russia (420-430 pounds not adjusted, but nearly all males captured were empty or close to empty). As the difference in weight can't be explained by a difference in total length, there has to be another reason. The most likely reason is a low prey base. Another reason could be the lack of large herbivores. One also has to consider climate and the large number of hunters (about 60 000) in the Russian Far East. e - The samples in Nagarahole, Royal Chitwan and Sichote-Alin were smallish. Furthermore, the Russian sample had a number of 3-year old male tigers and 'problem tigers'. This means the results of the measurements have to be taken with care. f - Compared to male lions of large subspecies, male tigers in Russia, Nepal and India are a bit longer (4-6 inches in total length). Nepal and Indian tigers also are heavier (about 50-60 pounds). Amur tigers and lions in South Africa, however, seem to be about similar in weight. One could argue that there is no information on Nogorogoro lions, but those who do should add there also is no information on tigers in Kazirangha. Exceptional individuals of both species seem to be quite close in head and body length and, perhaps, weight, but those interested in details would no doubt say that 'quite close' is different from equal. The main difference between both species is tigers produce more exceptional individuals. This although the number of wild tigers is about 10% of the number of wild lions. Compared to tigers of large subspecies, lions are as tall or (relatively) taller. They also have longer skulls. g - Wild tigers have been walking the edge for quite some time now. Unfortunately, some of them (including the Sauraha tiger in Nepal) perished when they were captured for research. Although these freak accidents were few and far between, every individual counts. As it is likely that less tigers will be captured in the near future, new information on the size of wild tigers will be limited. This means we have no other option but to use the familiar data time and again. Although chances are the information we have is not representative (many samples are small), my guess is that the trends will be confirmed. 
Great write up yet again Peter, like you stated, the only real reason the Amur being similar body length but 60lbs lighter than the indian bengal must be prey base and deforestation.
How can a captive Amur grow so massive but a wild one of recent years can't even hit 240kg? Its sad to see but hopefully the protection from STP helps them gain their old sizes.
TIGER SUBSPECIES - PART II ('Der Tiger', V. Mazak, 1983)
09 - The Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata) - continuation of 08 The left page starts with a comparison of the tail of a Caspian tiger (left) and an Amur tiger (right). Caspian tigers often had brown-black stripes. Black stripes were only seen on the head, neck, back and the end of the tail. The coat was much shorter in summer than in winter. Many male Caspian tigers had a mane and long belly hair. Although quite large, Caspian tigers had shorter, more bulldog-like, skulls than Indian tigers. The difference in size (greatest total length) in females was more outspoken than in males. In zygomatic width, it was the other way round. For their size, females of P.t. virgata had relatively wide skulls, whereas those of males, compared to skulls of male Indian tigers, lacked in this department. The sagittal crest in males often was well developed and high. Also watch the typical convex profile (see the drawing below). As Caspian tigers occupied a large part of southwest and south-central Asia, it is likely that there were distinct regional types. In the northwest (Georgia, eastern Turkey and the northeast of Iran), they inhabited elevated regions. Although somewhat smaller than those east of the Caspian, one male shot near Lenkoran (about 200 km. south of Baku, close to the border with Iran) was 360 cm. in total length (most probably measured 'over curves'). The one who saw him (K.A. Satunin) wrote the tiger was a giant, almost as large as a horse (Heptner and Sludskij, 1980, pp. 123-124). Those in northern and eastern Iran (Mazanderan) were intermediate in size, but the male shot by Col. R.L. Kennion had a dressed skin of 10.8 (325,12 cm.) and a skull of 342,90 cm. in greatest total length and 254,00 mm. in zygomatic width, and another male shot near Pindjeh had a skull of 338,67 x 228,85 mm. (Pocock, 1929, pp. 522-523). East of the Caspian, tigers inhabited riverine forests near mountain rivers. Most reports about large tigers are from this region (east and south of Lake Aral). Males reached 200 cm. and well over in head and body length (measured 'over curves') and 180-220 kg., but there are reports of heavier animals. Two females shot in Tadzjikistan were 97 and 135 kg. (Heptner and Sludskij, 1980, pp. 123-124). Some male Caspian tigers reached 360,00 mm. and just over in greatest total skull length, The skull from the Lenkoran tiger was 365,76 mm. when measured by Pocock (1929, pp. 523) and 362,00 mm. in greatest length when measured by Mazak half a century later. The report on a tiger with a skull length of 385,00 mm. in Heptner and Sludskij (1980, pp. 124) most probably is incorrect. This male, shot on January 10, 1954 near Sumbar (Kopet-Dag), allegedly was 225 cm. in head and body length. As the information on the condylobasal length (305,00 mm.) and zygomatic width (205,00 mm., which seems very unlikely) didn't match the skull length, V. Mazak contacted those who knew more. He found out the tiger was not a very large individual. The animal was exhibited in the Aschabad Natural History Museum, which was destroyed during an earthquake in the late fifties of the last century (pp. 191-192). The skull of the tiger was lost:  *This image is copyright of its original author 10 - The Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica). The top of the left page (a continuation of the paragraph on the Caspian tiger) has a comparison between the occiput of a northern China tiger (left), a Caspian tiger shot in Turkmenistan (center) and a Manchurian Amur tiger (right). As to Amur tigers. Temminck (1844) was the first who used the name Felis tigris altaicus (now Panthera tigris altaica). The skin he described was bought by Von Siebold in Japan. The origin was Korea. The typical location for this subspecies, therefore, is Korea. V. Mazak concluded that the skull of old male Amur tigers in particular is very robust. The elevated and quite flat face and the very wide rostrum are typical for many male Amur tiger skulls. The sagittal crest is elevated, strong and, compared to those of Caspian tigers, quite horizontal. I can confirm Amur tigers usually have long and elevated skulls and wide rostrums, but concluded they are generally not as robust and heavy as those of male Indian tigers. However, I have to add that I only saw skulls of captive Amur tigers. What is seen in skulls is roughly confirmed in fysical appearance in that captive Amur tigers usually are taller and longer than captive Indian tigers. The captive tigress below was 178 cm. in head and body length (tail 88 cm. and total length 266 cm.), whereas the male, at 319 cm. in total length (head and body length 220 cm.) is the second longest measured by a biologist (the longest, at 320 cm., is the Duisburg Zoo tiger). Both animals were measured 'between pegs'. The male tiger, wildcaught, was 337 cm. in total length 'over curves'. When standing, he was 104-105 cm. at the shoulder:  *This image is copyright of its original author 11 - The Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) - continuation of 10 The difference between summer and winter coat usually is more pronounced than in Caspian tigers. The coat has more white than in other subspecies, especially near the eyes and on the (inside of the) legs. Skins of Amur tigers show more variation than all other subspecies. The number of black rings on the tail is limited to 6-7. Near the insertion, the tail has no rings but stripes (typical for many Amur tigers). The tiger on the bottom left was wildcaught (near Chabarowsk). The photograph was taken in the Moscow Zoo. At 104-106 cm. when standing, he was the second tallest in Mazak's table on the size of captive tigers when standing (pp. 180). Male tiger 'Ulan' from the Prague Zoo (right), at 104-105 cm., was similar in size:  *This image is copyright of its original author 12 - The Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) - continuation of 11 Tigress 'Tapka' (Prague Zoo, top left) was 171 cm. in head and body length (tail 86 cm. and total length 257 cm.) and 85-86 cm. at the shoulder when standing. The giant male on the right right (he too was called 'Amur') is one of the largest I know of. This tiger was transported from Rotterdam to Duisburg when he was young. This tiger was 210 cm. in head and body length (tail 110 cm. and total length 'between pegs' 320 cm.). He was never weighed, but experts thought he was 280-300 kg. in his prime. When standing, he was 110 cm. at the shoulder:  *This image is copyright of its original author 13 - The Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) - continuation of 12 In Mazak's day, Amur tigers had completely disappeared in the southwestern (Manchuria), western (Altai) and northern parts of the territory they once occupied. They were only seen in Sichote-Alin and parts of North-Korea. Mazak's table with skull measurements is incomplete and a bit misleading. Incomplete because the skulls of the two male tigers captured during the Mordon-Graves expedition were not included. Both tigers, although heavy (480 and 550 pounds), had short skulls. Was Mazak not aware of the paper written by G.G. Goodwin? Yes, he was ('Der Tiger', V. Mazak, pp. 188). This means it is more than likely he knew about the skulls of both tigers. I don't know why they were not included in the table. If they would have been, the minimum would have dropped to just over 330,00 mm. (greatest total skull length). Misleading, because Mazak, probably as a result of a small sample, mixed skulls of wild and captive animals. I only know of one skull of a wild male Amur tiger that reached 16 inches (406,40 mm.). This skull was not accepted, but chances are the longest skulls of wild male Amur tigers will reach that length. The reason is there are a few skulls of captive male Amur tigers which exceeded 350,00 mm. in condylobasal length. As the difference between condylobasal length and greatest total length in large male tiger skulls can exceed 50,00 mm., it is likely these skulls would have been 390,00-405,00 mm. in greatest total length. As is it known that skulls of wild tigers usually are a bit longer than skulls of captive tigers, chances are some skulls of wild male Amur tigers reach or exceed 400,00 mm. as well. This means the most likely range for wild male Amur tigers is 330,00-405,00 mm. in greatest total length. Mazak could have been right regarding the average (367,00 mm.). I also agree with his conclusion on the effect of age. Old males, therefore, could average about 370,00 mm. in greatest total length. As for the morphological data. The information on page 163 (total length 'between pegs'), with the exception of the Sungari River tiger (shot by the Jankowski's in 1943), relates to captive Amur tigers. Captive male Amur tigers range between 280-320 cm. in total length, measured 'between pegs'. Wild male Amur tigers average 294 cm. in total length, but there are some questions as to the method used to measure them. Based on what I know (Miquelle's emails), I propose to deduct 4 inches for now. This means wild males could average 284 cm. or thereabout when measured 'between pegs'. Although some of you no doubt disagree, it would make sense. There is no question that today's Amur tigers are not as heavy as a century ago. It could be possible that they also lost a bit of length. This is from Bruce Patterson ('The Lions of Tsavo', 2004, pp. 112): " ... The ultimate physical or behavioral expression of any genotype (its phenotype) is shaped by its environment during development. Different conditions can produce remarkable variation in the absence of genetic differentiation. For example, United States men raised in the mid-twentieth century are usually four to five inches taller than their fathers, and differences in childhood nutrition alone are sufficient to explain this difference. Cold War diets were far more nourishing than Great Depression ones, and sons realized more of the potential growth afforded by their genes. Like people, lions are long-lived, with an extended maturation period and a lifestyle even more strongly affected by boom-bust 'economics'. So it seems reasonable to expect substantial developmental variation in lions ... ". Mazak wrote old (captive?) males averaged about 250 kg. in his day. The heaviest captive male Amur tiger was 676 pounds (306,63 kg.). On page 189, he mentioned the weights of 9 wild male Amur tigers. They were 245, 250, 184, 196, 217, 195, 270, 250 and 221 kg. (average 225,33 kg. or just under 497 pounds). I remember the evaluation of historic records of wild Amur tigers published some years ago. The conclusion was most records are unreliable. I agree captive Amur tigers are longer and heavier than all other subspecies, but the average most probably isn't 250 kg. Males in their prime could reach that weight every now and then, but the average for most would be 210-220 kg. (464-486 pounds) Today's wild males (problem tigers not included) range between 150-212 kg. (average about 190 kg. or 420 pounds). A century ago, wild Amur tigers were heavier. Most attempts to get to a reliable average resulted in 210-225 kg. (464-496 pounds), or about similar to today's captive male Amur tigers. This means today's wild male Amur tigers, after their downfall in the thirties of the last century and their rise in the seventies and eighties, lost 20-30 kg. or, seen from today's perspective, about 10-15%. The most likely reasons are habitat destruction, prey deletion, competition (60 000 hunters) and a lack of large ungulates. The question on maximum size is difficult to answer. There are quite many reports about wild tigers easily exceeding 300 kg. (up to 384 kg.), but not one of these records was accepted. The reason was a lack of evidence. I understand, but the photograph of the Sungari River tiger shot in July 1943 leaves no doubt that that some wild male Amur tigers reached a great size. Judging from the photograph, this tiger was bigger and heavier than the large tiger shot by Baikov near the Korean border. That male was 560 pounds. My guess is the Sungari River tiger was similar in length (both tigers well exceeded 10 feet 'between pegs') and at least 100 pounds heavier. Maybe the old hunters were not overdoing it, that is. Judging from the size of some captive males, 700 pounds and over for an exceptional male can't be excluded out of hand. As for wild Amur tigers. If tiger 'Luke' or 'Lyuk' can get to 212 kg. (468 pounds) with 183 cm. in head and body only, chances are a larger male in his prime could reach 250 kg. (552 pounds). I wonder if they would be able to capture a tiger of that weight with a footsnare when it is known that at least one wild male Amur tiger of about 200 kg. (442 pounds) was able to pull the snare to bits. Anyway. This is the last scan on Amur tigers from Mazak's book. To be continued:  *This image is copyright of its original author
(10-13-2015, 08:57 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Great post @peter, as usual. I don't think it's likely the one who measured the skull made an error. It's more likely an error was made when the book of Heptner and Sludskij was printed. A skull of an adult male tiger usually is well over 205,00 mm. in zygomatic width. Anyhow. Mazak apparently contacted the Aschabad Natural History Museum and found that the tiger wasn't a very large animal. Maybe the measurements given in Heptner and Sludskij (head and body length 225,00 cm.) were taken 'over curves' and maybe they were taken from the skin. Mazak concluded the condylobasal length could have been correct. If so, the greatest total length would have been 335,00-340,00 mm., or about average for an adult male of that subspecies. As the skull was lost during an earthquake, we will never know. The only thing we know for sure is that the tiger was shot in January 1954 near Sumbar (Kopet Dag).
Some time ago, I proposed the idea that, in fact, the real condylobasal length and zygomatic wide was of 350 mm and 250 mm respectively and that the figures in the English translation were a mistake. However, Mazák saw the original version, so I think that in any form, the figure of 385 mm is incorrect and should not be used.
Under this evidence, it seems that Indochina and Caspian tigers were about the same maximum size with GSL of 365 mm and 368.5 mm respectively. However, on average size, it seems that Caspian tigers still hold they ground, with an average of 339.1 mm in GSL, slightly longer than the Indochina specimens with an average of 328.6 mm in GSL, males only. 
Hunting performance of captive-born South China tigers (Panthera tigris amoyensis) on free-ranging prey and implications for their reintroduction by María C. Fàbregas, Geoffrey T. Fosgate, Gary M. Koehler is attached. The take away: "Our study represents the first empirical evidence that captive-born tigers can successfully hunt free-ranging prey adequately to meet their energetic demands, validating the use of captive animals to recover wild populations, should their reintroduction criteria be met. Moreover, that tigers adapted to the African veld ecoregion suggests they should be able to adapt back to southern China where opportunities for stalking and ambush are more numerous."
MY SPORTING MEMORIES - FORTY YEARS WITH NOTE-BOOK AND GUN - Maj.-Gen. N. Woodyatt, London, 1923 (320 pp.)
1 - Introduction Woodyatt's book covers just about everything one would expect. Most game animals are discussed. The remarkable part is in his connections. Woodyatt knew most of those with experience. Some of them (like Sir John Hewett) wrote books. Books that were discussed by those interested in methods and measurements. As not all questions of those interested were answered, Woodyatt's book is interesting. The photographs are from General Sir Baber Shum Shere (second son of the ruler of Nepal), Lt.-Col. Sir John Goodwin and Mrs. Jack Lowis. Woodyatt thought some were remarkable. I agree. This post is limited to tigers. 2 - A conversation with Sir John Hewett As a result of his rank, Woodyatt met with many who had a reputation in British India in the first decades of the last century. The 'shoots' he was invited to were well-organized and, not seldom, quite massive. After a hunt, the participants talked. Those who topped the list during these conversations were not great tiger slayers per se. They were respected because they offered others the chance to bag a tiger. Woodyatt distinguished between those he regarded as 'selfish' and those directed by 'sportsmanship'. Sir John Hewett was known for his sportsmanship. Woodyatt recorded one conversation with Sir John Hewett. It was in 1911: Hewett: " ... I hear you got a big tiger last week, Woodyatt? ... ". Woodyatt: " ... Yes sir, a very good one. It measured 10.2 ... ". Hewett: " ... Ah, well! I have seen one hundred and forty-nine dead tiger measured, and only five of them were ten feet or over. I wonder how it was measured? ... ". Woodyatt: " ... By experienced men, but I was not myself present, etc. ... " (pp. 15). Woodyatt's longest tiger was a very long one. Shooting in a party of nine, it initially wasn't clear who had fired the lethal shot: " ... The morning's strain was beginning to tell, enhanced by the great heat, and the suspence regarding the award. Lowis, calling aside No.4 'stop' and one gun from the line, walked off into the blue, while Gordon-Canning and the others went through the preparations for measurement. I felt I could not stick it any longer. The tiger looked enormous, and much bigger than any I had ever seen. It appeared as if the trophy must be mine, but still the question was not settled. Jack Lowis was most careful always to sift the matter thoroughly. Pulling out my pipe, I walked away into the river bed, and sat in some shade of grass. A quarter of an hour afterwards on my return Lowis met me. He took off his hat, made a little bow, put out his hand and said " ... Congratulations, ten feet two inches ... ". As I explained, I did not see the tiger measured, but I was told it was done between pegs ... " (pp. 69). Measured 'over curves', Woodyatt's tiger must have been at least 10.6 (most probably 10.7 or a little more). Longer than the longest recorded by Sir John Hewett, that is. That a tiger of ten feet measured 'over curves' was considered as something out of the ordinary wasn't only confirmed by Sir John Hewett: " ... At the luncheon table was John Broun, I.C.S., then, I think Commissioner of the Meerut civil division. John was a great tiger slayer. He has probably shot a hundred. Our host appealed to him for his opinion. To my astonishment Broun said that out of all the tiger he had shot, not one measured ten feet. I am not at all sure he did not say that he had never seen one of that length shot by any one. I believe most of his shooting was in light jungle ... " (pp. 15). 3 - The longest tigers " ... Of the great number of tiger shot in the Bettiah jungles there was only one bigger than mine, and that was shot by a planter named Dixon a year later. The biggest tiger I know of, personally, was shot by Sir Bindon Blood in Nepal, and is recorded as 10.8 - an old friend of mine (Sir John Campbell, late Indian Civil Service), who gives me this measurement was present. He adds that the biggest tiger, all round, that he ever saw (he has been at the death of nearly two hundred) measured 10 feet 4 and a half inches. A tigress is not as big as a tiger. I have never seen one that I estimated as over nine feet. Sir John Hewett saw the late Swan Kennard of the 15th Hussars kill one measuring 9 feet 6 inches. This is very unusual. Sir John adds that he never saw another over 9 feet 3 inches, and that the biggest tigress he ever shot himself was 9 feet 2 inches. The tigress I shot through the lungs as recorded on page 63, though she looked quite big, measured only 8 feet 6 inches. In short, one may truly say that tigresses of nine feet and over are, like tigers of ten feet and over, extremely rare. If the young sportsman shoots a tiger which measures 9 feet 3 inches between pegs, as I have described, he should be more than satisfied. If he kills one three inches longer, he has shot a whopper ... " (pp. 15-16). Although I'm not sure as to the 10.8 and the 10.4 and a half inch tiger, my guess is most measurements in the paragraph above were taken 'over curves'. This to show that 10 feet 'over curves' (9.7-9.8 'between pegs') was quite unusual in those days, even in a region known to produce large tigers. 4 - On methods Although Woodyatt thought that tigers could have been a bit larger in the past (because more of them had the opportunity to live to a great age), he also thought that most measurements of tigers reaching or exceeding ten feet in his day were unreliable. One reason was the method used often wasn't mentioned. Another was the method used wasn't applied in the correct way. This is how a tiger was measured 'over curves' in Woodyatt's (and Hewett's) day: " ... The usual and natural way to measure a tiger is to lay the beast flat on its side, stretch it out, run a steel tape from the tip of its nose, between its ears, to the end of its tail, following as closely as possible the curves of the body ... " (pp. 13). Sometimes, tigers were measured 'between pegs': " ... The ideal way is to pull the animal on to its back, press down the head and stretch the tail. Then drive in a peg at its nose, and another at the tip of its tail. The tiger having been removed, the measurement between the pegs will give you the correct length ... " (pp. 13). As to the difference in result between the two methods: " ... The measurement taken by the first method is the one usually recorded. Sometimes the second method is employed, and occasionally both lengths are given. Measuring over the curves of the body might make an increase of some three or four inches in a medium-sized tiger, and proportionally more in na very big one. It makes a good deal of difference what sort of tape is used (i.e., steel or other, old or new, repaired or whole, etc.). Also whether the measurement is taken generously along all curves, or very strictly. I say generously because I have known cases of an exceptionally big tiger, where there was a sympathetic tendency not to make the length an inch too short! The second method (between the pegs) is the better one. Unfortunately it is not the adopted rule, and this leads to a great deal of confusion in records. Some noted sportsmen object to it (e.g., Sir John Hewett), becasue in the jungle, they say you can so seldom find a suitable level piece of ground on which to stretch out a tiger. There is something in this argument. A dead tiger may weigh anything you like from 350 to 500 lbs., and stand three to three and a half feet at the shoulder, with a girth behind it of from forty to fifty-five inches. There was much talk of a tiger which weighed 700 lbs., and stood four feet high. I can hardly credit it. A huge beast like this is not easy to pick up and move about, in the hopes of finding a nice flat piece of ground. Nor can you delay too long, or rigor mortis will set in. Therefore it is not difficult to understand the inclination towards the first method of measurement. Certain localities are noted for their big tiger. The lighter the forest the smaller the tiger. I never saw a very long tiger in the Sawaliks (low hills below the Himalayas, in the U.P.), but they were usually very sturdy thick-set fellows ... " (pp. 13-14). 5 - A few photographs a - A Bettiah tiger I don't know if this is the 10.2 tiger Woodyatt shot (I don't think so, as all photographs were made by others), but there's no question it is a large male typical for that region:  *This image is copyright of its original author b - A wounded tiger mauling an elephant:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - A jungle tragedy:  *This image is copyright of its original author
I read man eaters of Kumaon a few years back and in that Jim Corbett mentions the Bachelor of Powelgarh measured 10'7" meaning it was the biggest tiger he shot. Another tiger called the Pipal Pani tiger was 10'3". He also shot a few more tigers over ten feet. All were over curves. So I think the maximum length of a tiger should be 10'6" over curves or a little over 10' between pegs.
Corbett also says that tigers of kumaon (present day Corbett National Park) reached 10' more often than tigers in other parts of India. Maybe that is where the talk of tigers from Northern areas being bigger than those from other parts originated. Interestingly he never weighed any tigers nor mentioned weight of any tiger anywhere. I find it surprising that he would take so much pain to measure carefully several times the tigers he shot, just to make sure he didn't make any mistakes in his measurement. But never actually weighed them. It's not like the tigers were left where they were shot, they were lifted and transported, so why not weigh them? @peter, Do you know why it was always length that was the yardstick for size and not anything else, in the hunter records? (10-29-2015, 05:02 AM)Shardul Wrote: I read man eaters of Kumaon a few years back and in that Jim Corbett mentions the Bachelor of Powelgarh measured 10'7" meaning it was the biggest tiger he shot. Another tiger called the Pipal Pani tiger was 10'3". He also shot a few more tigers over ten feet. All were over curves. So I think the maximum length of a tiger should be 10'6" over curves or a little over 10' between pegs. 1 - THE LENGTH OF TIGERS I agree with Corbett that tigers in northern India (and Nepal) most probably were a bit longer than those in other parts of India. Although tigers of 10.0 and over (measured 'over curves') were rare even in Hewett's day (1880-1930 roughly), there is no question some well exceeded Corbett's longest (10.7 'over curves'). Inglis mentioned one of 11.1 and he wasn't the only one. Tigers of 10.8 and 10.9 (also measured 'over curves') were shot in Nepal more than once. Also remember the posts on Knowles in this thread. He mentioned different large tigers also shot in that region. The longest of these was 10.6. Although I thought the tigers he mentioned were measured 'over curves', I could have been wrong. The reason is most of the shooting parties he joined were organized by Forest Officers. They were the ones who measured the tigers shot and most of them measured tigers 'between pegs'. Carrington, a Forest Officer who was stationed in Kumaon well before World War Two, shot a number of tigers in that region. The longest he shot was just over 10 feet 'between pegs'. The others he shot ranged between 9.5-9.6 (also measured 'between pegs'). And then there is the famous Hasinger tiger. Although I doubt the weight (allegedly well over 800 pounds), there is no doubt it was a very long tiger (11.1 'over curves'). Tigers shot in other regions in the same period (1880-1930) didn't produce very long tigers as a rule, but there were exceptions. There is plenty of evidence that tigers shot in central parts of India reached 10.0 and just over (up to 10.4) measured 'between pegs' (tigers in central India usually were measured 'between pegs'). Most of these were very heavy as well. Read the posts on Forsyth and Hicks in this thread. Also remember the posts on the Wiele tiger and 'Old One Eye' (Nilgiris). The last one was 11.0 'over curves' and very heavy. Many years ago, there was a debate between hunters on the method used to measure tigers. Some of them provided records of exceptional tigers. Although all had been measured 'over curves', there was no doubt some very massive animals with chests well exceeding 5 feet. The general conclusion was tigers in northern India were longer, whereas those in central and southern parts of India were more massive (as well as more dangerous). Here's a few scans posted before. a - Hicks (the tiger was 9.9 measured 'between pegs'):  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Hicks The tiger below was shot in Mysore. Skull circumference 42 inches and chest circumference 64 inches. The tiger was not weighed:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - Hawkins In his letter to the JBNHS, he compared a very large tiger he had shot in Assam with one shot in the Kheri forests:  *This image is copyright of its original author The information I have (sample large in all regions) clearly says tigers in northern India and Nepal were longer than those shot in other regions. They were also heavier. In females, this conclusion was even more pronounced. 2 - LENGTH AS A YARDSTICK I agree length isn't the best way to express size. At least, not in lions. Short lions can be every bit as impressive as long ones, if not more. In tigers, however, total length, I think, could be one of the best yardsticks. The reason is long animals usually also are more developed, more muscular and heavier as a rule. There are, of course, plenty of exceptions, but length most certainly is one of the best. I don't know why length became the most important yardstick, but it is way easier to carry a tape than a scale when you're hunting. A century ago, scales were few and far between. Furthermore, they were heavy, difficult to move and had as tendency to break down. Sir John Hewett had a scale made in Calcutta, but it broke down more than once. In the end, he decided against new repairs. This is why only 18 males were weighed. Today's biologists have more reliable scales, but they still are difficult to move and to handle. For some reason, they also keep selecting scales unable to weigh large tigers. This is why they were unable to determine the weight of two Nepal Giants. Weight, in my opinion, also isn't indicative for the size of a big cat. A tiger with a cough can lose a hundred pounds before you know it and when he is apprehended after a large meal the weight you find also isn't representative. Circumstances also have a severe impact. Some thought the size of the skull would be a more reliable yardstick. But is it? Two large male Amur tigers captured by Mordon and Graves were 480 and 550 pounds, but both had short and narrow skulls (well below 350 mm. in greatest total length). Tiger Raja is a very muscular animal with at least two scalps to his credit, but I would be surprised if he got to the average for a male in India (350-355 mm. in greatest total length). The very large tiger shot by Hewett's daughter (Hewett wrote it was one of the best he had seen) had a very long skull (412 mm. in greatest total length), but it was relatively narrow and about as heavy as the skull of an Indian tiger I measured. That skull, most probably (the occiput was destroyed), would have struggled to exceed 360 mm. Eardley Wilmot, regarding indicators of size, also gave it a shot:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author All measurements, I think, were taken 'between pegs'. Although I'm not sure, there seems to be a correlation between total length and greatest total skull length. Notice in particular the size of the skulls of the two females. Eardley Wilmot thought size was best expressed in skull width, but he was the only one who did. In order to get to an opinion on size, one needs as many parameters as possible. Total length, head and body length, skull circumference, neck, chest and, most of all, fore-arms. Weight, in my opinion, is less important. This is the male Amur tiger in the Tierpark Berlin. One of my very first photograph's (I recently got a camera and don't quite know how to use it) it was and I'm quite happy with it because it just about equals my opinion on this tiger. He was from the Moscow Zoo and, most probably, a direct descendant of a wild Amur tiger. He was very tall, long and had a oversized skull and big fore-arms. One of the largest I saw and very athletic, but he would struggle to get to 500 pounds:  *This image is copyright of its original author Compare to this wild tiger in northern India (again). Over 600, I think:  *This image is copyright of its original author
Recently, a paper on a tiger found in Tibet was published. The file is 2145 kb, a bit too big to attach here. If someone really wants it I can figure something out to get it to you.
For now, I'll post the most interesting bits.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author GCL is a modern tiger, XLN is the specimen of interest. This specimen is quite recent as the abstract shows. The epiphyses were clearly not fused, so it was not fully grown. It was probably nothing special in terms of size even it reached adulthood, but still seems on the robust end for a tiger. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 33 Guest(s) |