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)
|
 (10-03-2016, 09:50 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Do you think which other tiger subspecies they did resemble more? Years ago I saw a documentary on Chinese wildlife, it featured a short clip of a (presumably wild) South Chinese tiger moving across a forest patch. The tiger was very orange, had a very stocky build and a round face. 
Here is the rewilding South China tigers in South Africa, but I guess they might not be pure, and could have some Bengal or Indochinese in them.
PANTHERA TIGRIS AMOYENSIS (V. Mazak, 'Der Tiger', third edition, 1983)
Although the pages below have been posted before, I decided for a repost. The paragraphs below were added to help you out. They are based on the scans. a - Holotype Hankau, near Wuhan, Hubei (can you find a nice map, Grizzly?) b - Skull In general, skulls of Amoy tigers are somewhat less massive than those of Indian tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) or Indochinese tigers (Panthera Tigris corbetti). The major reason is size; skulls of Chinese tigers are smaller than those of Indian or Indochinese tigers. Compared to skulls of these two subspecies, the frontal part of the skull (the face) is less vaulted, whereas the occiput is a bit wider. The sagittal crest is less well developed and nearly straight. c - Colour Although subject to individual variation, the colouration is similar to that in many Indochinese tigers, but definitely darker than in Indian tigers. White parts on the belly and legs smaller. Stripes very black, but no clear pattern. In general, Chinese tigers have less stripes than Indochinese and Indian tigers. Most stripes are wide apart, wide, shortish and doubled on the side. Tail rings (referring to the dark stripes on the tail) relatively wide and often doubled. White near the eyes limited in size and at times creme in colour. White spot on the (back of the) ear smaller. d - Mane Hair length similar as in Indochinese and Indian tigers, but Chinese tigers seldom developed a mane. e - Distribution Chinese tigers were seen in most parts of China. Near large rivers, they ranged quite far west. In the south, they reached the northern parts of Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong. f - Size Measured 'between pegs', males ranged between 250-265 cm. in total length (8.2-8.8 roughly), as opposed to 230-240 cm. (7.5-7.9) for females. Males averaged about 140-145 kg. (309-321 pounds), whereas females ranged between 100-115 kg. (221-254 pounds). The heaviest male he knew of was 385 pounds (Smith, 1928, pp, 438). In Mazak's opinion, Chinese tigers were a bit smaller than Indochinese tigers. g - V. Mazak - Although the third edition of his book was published in 1983, V. Mazak collected most information he used for his book well before 1980. I know, because Dr. P. van Bree told me (Dr. P. van Bree and V. Mazak were friends and saw each other at regular intervals). In the days Mazak tried to find information about tigers, the Czech Republic still was Tsjecho-Slovakia. Like most countries in central and eastern Europe, it had been occupied by the Red Army in the Second World War. The occupation lasted until 1989, when the Sovjet-Union collapsed. Mazak, most unfortunately, didn't live to see it happen. He died well before his time. When he was active, therefore, Tjecho-Slovakia was occupied by the Russians. The disadvantage was restrictions all over the place and a lack of personal freedom, whereas the advantage was (knowledge of the Russian language and) access to Russian literature. At times, Mazak visited Russia. This is the reason he, most probably, was able to find and contact one of the Jankowskis. h - Summary The Chinese tigers Mazak saw were different from Indochinese and Indian tigers in that they were generally darker and had less stripes. The stripes were darker, wider, wider apart and doubled on the sides. Chinese tigers seldom developed a mane and apparently were a bit smaller than Indochinese tigers. Mazak only saw few skulls and apparently never read the books written by Caldwell and a few others who hunted tigers in different regions of China. The information I have says males shot in the southeastern part of China not seldom exceeded 9 feet in total length (measured 'between pegs'). Some reached or exceeded 400 pounds. Tigers in central parts of China could have been a bit smaller, but those in northern parts of China seemed to have been larger. One male shot in northwest China not so long ago was as large as an average male Amur tiger. This was a wild male. As to skulls. J.H. Mazak, definitely inspired by V. Mazak, published information about skulls of Chinese, Indochinese and Sunda tigers a few years ago. Although a bit shorter than those of Indochinese tigers, the difference was very limited. The question is what we really know. i - Appreciation The description on colouration and stripe patterns is detailed, but I'm not sure if V. Mazak saw tigers from the southeastern part of China. One has to remember that zoos in eastern Europe often had tigers captured in central parts of China. One reason could have been that many parts of central China were developed for agriculture after WWII. Tigers, as in the Caspian region half a century before, were considered as pests and hunted. Although a few were captured and sent to zoos, most were killed. The captive tigers in a facility in Southern China are said to be (relatives of) Chinese tigers, but they are quite similar to the tigers in the photographs below (see the scans). Tigers shot in the southeastern part of China half a century ago, however, might have been somewhat different: 1 - Captive Chinese tiger from a Fujian facility 2003:  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - Captive Chinese tigress Tierpark Berlin 1972:  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - Wild male Chinese tiger shot in the fifties of the last century:  *This image is copyright of its original author j - Scans (pages 148-152, in German)  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author k - More I have quite a bit more on descriptions, measurements, weights and habits. I also found articles in newspapers. Not reliable per se, but interesting. When I have time, I will post what I have.
Here is the position of the province Hubei in China.
 *This image is copyright of its original author But it is possible that the size of the South China tigers did manifest some strong regional variation? Since both Amur and Bengal use to display some regional variation. 
I am definitely in the same idea of Dr Sunquist: I biased toward tigers!!!!
 I love when new conversations about tigers arises and these new comments on the South China tigers lured me here again. As you know, I stop making comparative images of animals for time issues, but I still have not finished the tigers, I missed the Indochinese (and Malayan also included) and the South China tigers. In this case, my information on Indochinese tigers is very limited, so @peter I will like, if you can, to see all your data on this subspecies again, I only trust in your data which I remember, was the best in this subspecies. It is interesting to mention that the "modern" size and reports of the Malayan tigers is not representative of the past. Old records show animals of the same size than Indochinese specimens and Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) showed that the largest skull reported by Mazák for the Indochinese tiger (365 mm) was in fact from a Malayan tiger! That is why I decided to mix them both, for obvious reasons. On the South China tigers, I have also very few measurements, all between pegs, some skulls and a few weights. What I have found with this few data is that South China tigers were not as small as Mazák stated, in fact, they reached the size of the Indochinese tigers, with body length up to 190 cm and weight up to 190 kg. If @peter have more information, I will be glad to include it in the images. Finally, I have read a few comments on the Sunda tigers, so I will post some of the old data that I have, although with a new fresh air from the newest tiger documents of Wilting and others: 1. The term "Sunda tiger" is the correct one about the island tigers, as the genetic analysis showed that they are a single subspecies. In this case, the name Panthera tigris sondaica is the correct one for the Sumatran, Java and Bali tigers. Check this comparative image, is NOT the same old one, as I added references and the size of the image of the specimens is smaller.  *This image is copyright of its original author Now, why I scaled them smaller? Well, in my old images I used only the standing view of the animals and the measurements to scale them. Now, I used a new tool, two straight mounted skeletons of tigers, so now I modulated the images to match a real animal of those measurements. In this form, my new prepared images of tigers, lions and jaguars are somewhat smaller than the first ones, but this is because I used this new "skeleton" tool to fit them. 2. The size of the Sunda tigers is somewhat incorrect, specially for the Bali tiger. Mazák (1981 and 1983) stated that they were the smaller of the tigers with weights of barely 100 kg. Most web pages copy this idea, without knowing that there is not a single real weight of a Bali tiger in literature, and this is accepted by Mazák, although he focused in the body length, check this image:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now, using the method of Christiansen & Harris (2009), used to estimate the weight of the giant Panthera atrox, I calculated these weights for the Bali tigers:  *This image is copyright of its original author The table is old, the taxonomy is no longer accurate, but the calculated weights are the same. Mazák was not wrong with the females, but the males certainly were slightly heavier. Besides, Yamaguchi and his team revealed this new image of a male Bali tiger some time ago:  *This image is copyright of its original author Its size is of the same one of an average Sumatran or Javanese tiger (compare it with my comparative image), and add to the fact that the sample used is very small (only 9 skulls, one from a subadult, and that is all), I guess that the Balinese tigers were not as small as we think and probably about the same size than the average Javanese or Sumatran tigers. Even worst (or better?), is possible that the Balinese tigers were always in contact with the Javanese population, so the few (very few) specimens recorded in the island, were a small population of Javanese tigers, impulsed by young adults that traveled to the island searching new territories. Under this new idea, Balinese tigers do not suffered from any island dwarfism, but it is just that the few specimens recorded were in the small side of the scale, that is all. 3. On the skull department, @peter reported a Sumatran skull measuring 350 mm in GLS, which is the same than the largest Javanese tiger in the wild with 349 mm in GLS. The largest Sumatran tiger skull reported by Sody (1949) was of 345 mm in GLS, and in average, the Javanese tiger is larger than the Sumatran one, although it greatly overlap in the ranges. we know that the Sumatran tigers weight between 73 - 148 kg in the wild (about the same in captivity) and Slamet, the heaviest male recorded in both hunting and scientific literature, seems to be a large but not exceptional specimen (based in the pictures of the old hunted tigers in that area), which suggest a little higher weights. Sometime ago I stated that Javanese tigers had skulls of the same size than South Chinese tigers, which have figures between 318 - 348 mm in GLS and body weights of 130-190 kg. Now that I have have the book of Mazák "Der Tiger" (edition of 2013, reprint from 1983), I see that Mazák believed the same (pg. 172). So, I guess, based in the skull size, that Javanese tigers were as large as the South China tigers, even the variations between female skulls is minimal: female Java - 270-292 mm GLS; female South China - 273-300.5 mm GLS. Hemmer (1987) expressed the idea that despite the large size that some male Sunda tigers could reach, they were probably lighter in weight, and compared the female Amur tigers with skulls of 280-318 mm GLS and weights of 100-167 kg with the male Javanese tigers, with skulls of 295-349 mm GLS and weights of 100-141 kg (Mazák stated a minimum of 306 mm for Javanese males). Now, the problem is that while the figures of the Amur females is accurate, that of the Javanese males is not. The range of 100-141 kg from Mazák is a mere guess, as the only weight reported in literature for a wild male Javanese tiger is of 142 kg and came from a male with a GLS of just 331 mm Taking in count that the average GLS for males in Java is of 326.3 mm, this male was close to average, not to a maximum. Following the calculation of the weight of the Balinese tigers, using the Condylobasal length of 303 mm for the largest Javanese skull reported, I calculated a weight of 159.3 kg (using tigers only), 155 kg (using all Panthera specimens) and 155.4 kg (using the male of 331 mm GSL and 141 kg only) which is 7-11 kg heavier than the heaviest Sumatran tiger recorded at this moment (148 kg), and a weight like this is supported by the few photographs of very large Javanese male tigers hunted in the old days. This give us a good idea of how heavy could be these island tigers, however we must take in count that all the animals in the sample, apart from the Javanese male tiger, were captive specimens (normally lighter than the wild ones) and even with the wild male, it is unknown his health and physical status (only a few measurements "over curves" (?) were presented). Apart from the single wild male tiger from Java, there are also a record from a captive male at 110 kg and a female of 95 kg (Slaght et al., 2005), and this exhaust the weight figures from this population. 4. Finally, in the taxonomic side, the old classification of Mazák with three "subspecies" is obsolete. Genetic evidence suggest that the three populations belonged to the same subspecies, and this is, in fact, the only subspecies with enough genetic and morphological differences to be classified like that (Wilting et al., 2015). This is supported by the new geographic and climatic models in the study of Cooper et al. (2016), Dr Kitchener and Dr Wilting are also included in this new paper, of course. Now, there were some previous studies, one suggested that Sumatran tigers were not different from Mainland tigers (Wenzel et al., 1999) and other that suggest that it was a different species, using the phylogenetic species concept (PSC) (Cracraft et al., 1998). Luo et al. (2004) found that this population was the most distinguished from the other ones, but it was Xue et al. (2015) and Wilting et al. (2015) which finally clarified the issue and it was accepted that Sumatran, together with Java and Bali tigers, were a single subspecies in the Sunda islands that separated from each other very recently. On the skull issue, J. H. Mazák & Groves (2006) found that the Sumatran tigers were different from the mainland tigers, but also from the Sunda ones and proposed the idea that they were an "hybrid" between the mainland and the island population, and a latter document from J. H. Mazák (2010) proved again its difference from the mainland population, and sustain its "hybrid" status; this was the idea that I kept all this time, until now. New genetic and biogeograpic/climate studies do not support his hypothesis, and provided new evidence for the evolution of the modern tiger. Xue et al. (2015) proved that all the Sunda tigers are genetically related, just like the Caspian and the Amur tiger and differ greatly from the Mainalnd population, discarding any "hybrid" position of the Sumatran tiger, also, there is evidence that until 20,000 years ago, long after the Toba eruption, the mainland and the Sunda were still connected by large land bridges, as probably wider than Central America or the state of Florida, just to give you an idea. So, or an animal that can travel up to 1,000 km, this is a large open door to travel. The true separation between island and mainland tigers was not until the end of the last Ice Age and completely finished at about 12,000 years ago (the early Holocene) and until then, we can talk of real "subspecies". Sunda tigers started its own specialization with the slow separation of the mainland, but some "characteristics" like the narrow occiput were already present in the population and could reveal just an specialization to some predation adaptation that simply raised again when the Java-Bali tigers were isolated. Sumatran tigers characteristics are probably also adaptations to its environment, which is markedly different from that of Java, which smaller prey and deep forested habitat. This will prove that Sunda tigers are different from Mainland tigers, but also that there was no maternal genetic share between the Sunda island after this event. Now, the apparent morphological differences between Sumatran and Javanese tigers disappear if we make a deep comparison between pictures, and we see that characteristics like stripe patterns or physical "look" are superficial and irrelevant. In fact, there is also deep differences between Indian tiger populations but at the end there is not much variation in size, while the coat patter depends of the time of the year, age and physical status. Similar differences where in the Amur-Korea-Manchuria tigers, but all were of the same population. 5. Conclusion: The Sunda tigers (Panthera tigris sondaica) is one of the two subspecies of the modern tiger, it is smaller than the mainland one, and somewhat lighter at similar sizes. The old values of weights reported by Mazák need a good actualization and the skull sizes need to be taken in count for this. The three islands (Sumatra, Java and Bali) share a same ancestry (the late Pleistocene mainland tiger) and following the model of the Toba eruption of Cooper et al. (2016), an ancient population of Sunda tigers is not viable, which suggest that all the tigers, even the Sunda ones, have a mainland origin, which suggest that the old Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) was in fact, the only ancestor of all the modern tigers. The characteristics of the Sunda tigers, like a narrow occiput and darker skin with more stripes, as possible just simple adaptations to its environment, with Sumatran tigers showing a few of the mainland characteristics like "atavism", while the Java-Bali tigers showed again the same type of adaptations that the first mainland tigers wave produced and that given origin to the completely extinct Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis). However, this last part of the hypothesis could be wrong, if we take in count that the Mainland tiger subspecies (Panthera tigris acutidens) and the Sunda tiger subspecies (Panthera tigris soloensis) at the Pleistocene, kept a complete communication between them up to 20,000 years ago. The incredible of this is that if we follow this new model, and taking in count that tigers can travel up to 1,000 km in land and up to 29 kg in sea, the greatly interconnected tiger population was, at about 20,000 years ago, a single species with NO subspecies, and this population was the one that survived the Toba eruption, that given origin to both modern subspecies and its correct name most be Panthera tigris amoyensis, the original tiger, the South China tiger, and this is supported by genetic, bio-geographic and climatic models. Interestingly, after the split of the two groups, the correct name of the Mainland tigers would be Panthera tigris tigris, following the rules of Taxonomy. Sorry for the long post, but this is what I have concluded after reading ALLLLLLLLLL these documents, old and new ones. Comments are welcomed. Greetings to all. 
Body mass of the Sunda tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica):
Well folks, I like the clear data, so I made this table in this hours in order to show which are the weights that the Sunda tigers could have. Check it out:  *This image is copyright of its original author I used the equation from Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2009). The skulls data base came mostly from Sody (1948) and the collection of Mazák, so if you have more skulls from other sources I can add them in order to enlarge the sample. The average Greatest Skull Length (GLS) and Condylobasal Length (CBL) is just for these samples, as we already have the larger official samples in my comparative image (published in my previous post). I decided to show the weights produced with "wild specimens only", "captive specimens only" and a mix of both. Interestingly the figures obtained from captive specimens, in the case of the Sumatran tigers, match closer with the sample of wild specimens (again, check my comparative image), so I decide to put them in bold, as these are probably closer to the real figures. The captive Sumatran tiger specimen No. 107/37 is described as a "very meager animal" by Sorkin (1949), so its weight of 95 kg is probably somewhat low than a natural specimen, specially because it was taken after its dead (remember the case of the large Amur tigers reported by Mazák, which weights were unreliable as they were sick at the moment of its death). The formula gives a result of 103 kg, somewhat higher then the original but natural for any healthy captive Sumatran tiger. In the case of the wild Javanese tiger of 142 kg, the equation gives a number of 144 kg, very close, and that is also why I remarked the results from captive specimens. Again, it seems that Sunda tigers were somewhat lighter in comparison with Mainland tigers of similar size. In the case of the smallest Bali tiger (252 mm in GSL), Mazák et al. (1977) clearly described it as a "subadult", however it was used by Mazák & Groves (2006) and by Yamaguchi et al. (2009), even it was included in the book "Wild Cats of the World" of Dr Hunter, so I decided to included it here, also by the fact that this was the holotype of the "subspecies", so take this in count. This equation suggest a maximum weight of 158 kg, much lower than the maximum weight of 175 kg reported by Mazák for the South China tiger, but it is higher than the figure of about 140 kg reported by him for this population. Some ones could say that skulls are not a good predictor of weight, but if we take in count the lack of any other bone, skulls (and sometimes dentition) are the only thing that we can use. I proved with the equation of Van Valkenburg (1990) that also used CBL, but the results are too high and seems unreliable. So, the equation of Sorkin (2008) with the database of Christiansen & Harris (2005), Goodwin (1933) and Sody (1949), provided good results and for the moment, is the best I can do, with the samples that I have. If you have more data, or if there is an error in any table, please tell me and I will fix it or add your suggestions. By the way , is important to mention that the smallest adult tiger skull is not from Bali, but from a Caspian tigress, with a GSL of just 255.5 mm and a CBL of 225 mm (Mazák, 2013). Hope you like it, comments are welcomed. Greetings to all.
Chengdu Zoo male South China tiger（left）and male Siberian tiger，Age is not clear.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
The Amur canines are usually greater in thickness in comparison with other tiger subspecies. Although I am not sure about the proportion of the Bengal fangs.
Here is the a comparison between the Indochinese canines and Amur canine, and the Amur one definitely looks greater in the thickness dimension.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
GUATE
Many thanks for two very interesting posts (1009 and 1010). I especially liked the part on tiger evolution, as it is based on the most recent peer-reviewed documents. It must have taken a lot of time to get to sound conclusions. Be sure it is much appreciated! In this post, I'll respond to both posts from the top down. 1 - POST 1009 a - Panthera tigris amoyensis and Panthera tigris corbetti Last year (2015), I decided to go over everything I have in order to get to a few conclusions. I started with length, body dimensions and weight. Later, skull measurements were added. The next step was tables, corrected for age and status (captive and wild). As I have quite a lot on Javan and Sumatran tigers, I decided to do them first. Just before I started the project which would have lasted for quite some time (about a year, I thought), those I know intervened. They said the house was close to a collapse. If I was to prevent total desintegration, something had to be done right away. They would do most of the work, but the condition was I had to forget about tigers for the moment. The next day, I got a hammer and started a journey into the unknown. Just after we had started, those who own the houses in the neighbourhood decided the time had arrived to upgrade just about everything. This means the residents were bombed out of their beds five days a week for many months. What I'm saying is I was overtaken by reality. Apart from a few sound decisions, reality is about maintenance and upgrading things just about all the time. In order to pay for it, one has to take care of the money as well. Forumwise, this year was a slow one. At least, for me. The forum did well, but I didn't have the time to invest. In some time, however, I'll be up and running again. One of the things I'll change first, is Photobucket. The reason is it's unreliable, if not a total mess. This means I'll have to transfer over 3100 scans to a new provider. If any of you has a proposition, I'll listen. Returning to measurements. I have quite a bit on Panthera tigris amoyensis and Panthera tigris corbetti. The problem is I just don't have the time needed to get to work. From memory, I can say the range in size is impressive. One reason is both China and Indochina are very large. The result is a lot of variation (landscape and conditions). Tigers in the southern part of Malaysia, including Terengganu, are smallish to intermediate in size with males averaging about 8.7 in total length 'between pegs'. Those in the northern part (like Perak), however, are larger and, especially, more robust. From Perak to the east, all the way to Vietnam, tigers seem to be quite large. Those in southern parts of Vietnam, however, were decidedly smaller. Tigers living in the region between Perak and the northern part of Burma also are smaller, but not by much. Those in the Naga Hills, with males averaging about 8.7 in total length 'between pegs', are similar in size to those in the southern part of Malaysia and Vietnam. Annam tigers, at the extreme eastern edge of the Perak-Annam axis, were as large as many Indian tigers. To the north and northwest of that region, they declined in size, but tigers in the northeastern part seemed to have been a bit larger. Male Amoy tigers most probably averaged just below 9 feet 'between pegs' in total length, but they were less robust than the slightly shorter tigers shot in central parts of China. The average of Mazak (good to read you finally got the book) for Panthera tigris corbetti, if anything, was a bit too careful. Also remember individual variation was much more pronounced a century ago, when tigers could still travel. Some of the tigers shot in the southern tip of Malaysia by the Sultan of Johore, for example, were as large as an average Indian tiger (well over 9 feet straight). One of the tigers shot by the Sultan had a skull with a greatest total length of about 365 mm. b - Sunda tigers Those who saw or hunted tigers in Indonesia over a century ago agreed Bali tigers were definitely smaller than those in Java or Sumatra. They also agreed it was more than likely that Java tigers, and males in particular, swam to Bali every now and then. This would explain the size of some males shot in Bali. There is another way to get to an estimate on Bali tigers by using information from Sumatra and Java. Assuming sexual demorphism was about similar on all islands, one could conclude male Bali tigers averaged 100-110 kg. (meaby a bit more). The average, however, would have been below the average for Sumatra. The reason is skull measurements and verified weights and measurements of reliable reporters strongly suggest Sumatran male tigers were larger animals. If Sumatran males ranged between 115-130 kg. (my estimate would be closer to 120), male Bali tigers would have been below that mark. If we add individual variation, which was and is quite pronounced in tigers, a large male Bali tiger could have reached 105 + 25-35% = 130-140 kg., whereas a large male Sumatran tiger could have reached 120 + 30-35% (large mammals show more pronounced extremes) = 155-165 kg. Experienced Dutch hunters who thought exceptional males reached 170 kg. or even a bit more could have been close, as large and healthy populations tend to produce more pronounced exceptions. Javan tigers, although a bit larger, would have struggled to get to that mark. One reason is they were a bit less robust. Furthermore, they, numberswise, walked the edge between 1900-1930. If we use 105, 120 and 130 kg. as averages for Bali, Sumatra and Java (males), we could be close to the mark. Exceptional males might have added 30-35, 45-50 and 35-40 kg. respectively. My estimate for all Sunda tigers would be 70-80 kg. for females (range 55-105) and 115-125 for males (range 85-155). A century ago, some males might have (well) exceeded 155 kg. c - Evolution The new documents, again, offer a new view on the past. The idea that the Toba eruption had more impact than assumed before has profound consequences in that it's very unlikely tigers survived anywhere but in some parts of southern China and northern Indochina. This means the southeastern part of Asia (now Indonesia) was recolonised by tigers after the Toba eruption. If we include the assumption that the bridge between mainland Asia and what's now Malaysia and Indonesia only closed about 12 000 years ago and distinct local types, therefore, developed in a relatively short period of time, we should be able to find some evidence pointing in that direction. In skulls, to a degree, it seems to be there, in that skulls of Indian tigers and Javan tigers are quite close in many respects. Apart from size, the main difference is in the occiput (narrower in Javan tigers) and, perhaps, the mandibula (more often concave in Javan tiger skulls). This points to a specific adaption. As it is also seen in skulls of tigers that lived in the same region many thousands of years earlier, it's likely the adaption had to be related to what's now Java. My guess is it was an adaption to large prey animals. As this adaption also would have resulted in a large tiger, one would expect to find a few traces. My guess is Javan tigers could have been quite large animals until a few thousand years ago, when conditions changed and they had to adapt. The adaption resulted in less size, but the occiput didn't change. This means Javan tigers didn't change the way they used their jaws. The question is why. Maybe Gir lions can help in this respect, as some male skulls also have a narrow occiput. Although there is some evidence for genetic exchange (referring to overlap in skull structure), skulls of Sumatran tigers are very different from Javan tiger skulls. They also are different from skulls of other tiger subspecies. One reason could be Sumatra, which is very different from all other regions that have tigers. It's quite remarkable that this island, although densely forested, has different large animals. It almost seems as they were trapped when conditions changed. Maybe Sumatran tigers adapted, which could have resulted in two distinct types; one a typical jungle cat going for typical (smallish) jungle animals and another one developing into a larger animal going for larger prey animals. I can hear you say males and females, but this isn't likely as it's the only local type where skulls of males and females overlap. This is the reason I concluded Sumatra (could have) had two distinct types. Most tigers would have been small to medium-sized, but some are larger. As deforestation continues, chances are more tigers will develop into larger animals going for larger prey animals. 2 - Post 1010 a - Table As you used a method used by others in similar conditions, there's no reason for criticism. The only thing I can think of is the method originally was developed to estimate the weight of large animals, but the results nevertheless seem quite decent. That leaves a reliable (large) data base. In this respect, I might be able to help a bit. In some months, I will post tables about Javan and Sumatran tigers. Every table will have individual entries only, meaning you will be able to find the skulls you didn't use for your tables. After posting the tables, I will try to find the old Dutch hunter magazins. I know they are there. Might take a lot of time, but I assume there will be a lot of information. I also assume those unable to read Dutch didn't read them.  
@P.T.Sondaica, Do not quote posts which are just 2 or 3 post above. Because this make the page unnecessarily long and hard to read. You can mention user in your reply.
Use quoting of post only if it far away from current post. I hope this help (10-13-2016, 09:22 AM)sanjay Wrote: @P.T.Sondaica, Do not quote posts which are just 2 or 3 post above. Because this make the page unnecessarily long and hard to read. You can mention user in your reply. Just error in my android dude!!!!!!! (10-12-2016, 12:24 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Javan tiger from kendeng lembu east java porabably 200 kg Large male Sunda tigers might have ranged between 150-165 kg. a century ago. Although not excluding anything, a Javan tiger well exceeding that mark would have been quite something. You have any details about the Kendeng Lenbu tiger, P.T. Sondaica? 
T-3’s DNA runs through 37 Panna tigers
It’s a record of sorts. A tiger brought to Panna National Park from the Pench Tiger Reserve in November 2009 as part of a reintroduction plan has its DNA running through 37 of the 41 tigers born in Panna since 2010. Assigned the call sign T-3, this paterfamilias of Panna, aged about 10 years, has his off-springs spread over a radius of more than 300 kms from where he stays. Alternatively called ‘Mr Panna’ and ‘Betal’, the park authorities also attribute him for introducing T-4, a tigress that was earlier bred in an enclosure to wild conditions. Panna tiger reserve had been declared ‘tiger less’ in December 2008, after which a reintroduction plan was launched with four adult tigresses and a tiger. T-3 now weighs about 240 kgs and qualifies as a massive tiger, occupying the best habitat in Panna national park. The tiger almost died when it was tranquilised at Pench to be brought to Panna. He survived and reached Panna on November 6, 2009, but walked out of the reserve in December 2009.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Wildlife experts termed his behavior as “homing”, suggesting that the tiger was trying to go back to his original home at Pench. Sleepless park authorities, aided with radio collar signals followed him, tranquilised him in Damoh district and brought him back. T-3 then settled down and has since fathered litters from T-1, T-2, T-4 and T-5 tigresses, besides from other tigresses born later in Panna. “We often call T-3 a ladies’ man because he would get his way with any tigress he pursued. T-4, a tigress that had been bred in an enclosure at Kanha was released in Panna. It was a first of its kind experiment and we were worried how she would adapt to the wild. Soon, T-3 arrived in the picture, and was always around the tigress. T-3 made a kill in the process and in a way taught the tigress how to do so in the wild, completing her adaptation to her new home,” said chief conservator of forests (CCF) and former field director, Panna tiger reserve, R Sriniwas Murthy. T-3’s exact age is not known as he was born in the wild, but park authorities claim he is about 10 years old. He is getting old and would soon face a challenge for territory from other males, which he had been able to ward off till now, mainly due to his massive size. The most obvious challenger would be P 112, his eldest ‘son’ with whom he would have to vie for holding on to the best areas of the reserve. “Panna needs another male so that the gene pool can be diversified,” says Murthy, adding that two male tigers were part of the original reintroduction plan. http://globaltigerinitiative.org/site/wp...covery.pdf http://www.hindustantimes.com/bhopal/t-3-s-dna-runs-through-37-panna-tigers/story-Azp1tV0TWTD3T8Ccr7S5uL.html
Here is a newspaper copy of the account mentioned above^
http://mpenvis.nic.in/index2.aspx?slid=8...id=1&mid=4  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 10 Guest(s) |