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)
|
Yes, the skull is very smooth, well-developed, muscular and robust. This points towards a wild male tiger. The owner was adult, as the sutures are completely closed. The undamaged teeth seem to have lost the massiveness typical for a prime animal. Although still large, the size of the upper canines is not as striking as in many Sumatran skulls. This most probably also means the skull is quite large. Judging from the well-developed sagittal crest, I'd say he was past his prime. Mandibula straight, but the tip is reinforced. This again points towards use and age.
Compared to the length, the zygomata seem relatively very wide and massive. Not typical for Russia. Occiput quite wide and rounded, which means Bali and Java can be excluded. As Sumatran tiger skulls often are a bit flatter in the anterior part, I'd would exclude them as well. That leaves the Caspian region, China, southeast Asia, India and Nepal. Caspian region first. The profile of the sagittal crest of quite many Caspian skulls often is slightly convex. As the crest in the photograph you posted is straight, we can exclude the Caspian region. Tiger skulls from (central and southern) China only seldom reach 350 mm. in greatest total length. Even when they do, they often lack the robustness and the width typical for, say, India. According to V. Mazak, skulls of Panthera tigris corbetti are quite similar to Indian tiger skulls. They are, however, smaller. The occiput also is a bit more rounded and relatively wider, especially in the middle part. As a result of the smaller size, they also often are less robust. That leaves India, Nepal and Russia. Russia is possible, but Amur skulls often are dominated by an elevated and quite long face, (greatest total) length and (very long and straight) canines, not width. Based on the width of the zygomata and the vaulted profile, I'd go for India or Nepal. The problem is the sagittal crest in the skull in the photograph is straight, whereas many skulls of wild male Indian tigers show a concave profile. This is a skull from Nepal. The occiput is clearly lifted, resulting in a, quite typical, concave profile:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is a skull from Assam. A bit shorter, but more massive. The sagittal crest starts directly after the os frontalis and is nearly completely straight. Occiput slightly lifted, but not to the degree seen in the Nepal skull (see above). Canines slightly shorter, but more robust:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is the photograph you posted:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is the largest Amur skull V. Mazak saw (383 mm. in greatest total length). The skull is from the northeastern part of China (Manchuria). Watch the sagittal crest and the shape of the anterior part of the skull:  *This image is copyright of its original author Male Amur tiger Chanwangshai (also Manchuria). Very similar in alle respects:  *This image is copyright of its original author Skull of a poached wild male Amur tiger. Elevated, long and very large upper canines:  *This image is copyright of its original author Captive male Amur tiger. Elevated, long and very large upper canines. Not very wide:  *This image is copyright of its original author The second drawing from V. Mazak (Assam) seems to be quite close to the photograph you posted. Northeastern India, that is. But tigers in the northwestern part of Burma (Myanmar) might have a similar skull and they too can reach a large size. I'm not completely excluding Manchuria or northern China, though. This is the skull of a wild male Indian tiger posted before. One of the best I saw. Could have been from northeastern India. Remember the occiput was destroyed and repaired later. The reconstruction wasn't, ehhh, a complete success. Based on the condylobasal length, I'd say the skull was over 360 mm. in greatest total length. Zygomatic width over 260 mm. Not as long as the male Amur skull above, but more robust and heavier. Upper canines a bit shorter and not as straight, but as robust, if not more so:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is the skull of a captive male Indian tiger. Similar in many ways, but shorter and not as well developed. The skull belonged to an old zoo tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author Captive male Sumatran tiger. A bit like a captive male Amur tiger (long-faced, quite flat and very long canines), but smaller all the way:  *This image is copyright of its original author Wild male Javan tiger. Skulls of Javan and Indian tigers are quite similar in many ways. Profile more vaulted than in Sumatran tiger skulls. Upper canines a tad shorter, but more robust and more curved:  *This image is copyright of its original author Wild male lion (top) and captive male Amur tiger (bottom) of similar length. Anterior part in the lion skull (face) relatively very long. Mandibula also relatively very long. Molars longer and a bit bigger. Amur tigers could have the longest face of all tiger subspecies, but it's still shorter than in most lion skulls (only very seldom, if ever, over 50% of the total skull length). Upper canines very long and not as curved as in many other tiger subspecies:  *This image is copyright of its original author Wild male Indian tiger (left) and wild male Indian lion (right). Indian tigers have shorter faces than Amur tigers. Upper skull profile more vaulted. Upper canines a bit shorter and more curved. This Indian lion had a nearly straight mandibula, but the tip is longer and more curved. Mandibula also is quite a bit longer longer. Face longer, straighter and more square (right angles). Slope of the posterior part of the skull more pronounced. In lion skull, the condylae often (almost) touch the surface. Axis of vision straight or slightly upward:  *This image is copyright of its original author Notice the lion, although roughly similar in size (greatest total length) has a longer mandibula and a longer face in both cases. Any details known about the skull you posted? 
Why such the extreme difference in the Nepal skull?
The concave in the sagital crest is very noticeable. 
Unfortunately, I don't have any additional details regarding to this particular skull.
Also, its canine teeth don't look very conical which is quite atypical for an Amur tiger. It also does surprise me that the Assam skull is morphologically closer to the Amur skull instead with other members of the same subspecies. (11-18-2016, 08:20 PM)Pckts Wrote: Why such the extreme difference in the Nepal skull? I also find this very intriguing, let's see what is @peter's opinion regarding to the convergent evolution between the members of two different groups.
I never read anything about the structure of tiger skulls, meaning I'm on my own here. Entering the realm of speculation, that is. But I don't mind giving it a try.
INDIAN TIGERS - LOWER SKULL DEVELOPMENT, RESULTING IN A LIFTED AND STRENGHTENED OCCIPUT AND ROBUSTNESS V. Mazak (1983) wrote the concave profile of the sagittal crest was quite typical for Indian tigers. He added it was more often seen in skulls from Nepal and northern India. As tigers in these regions could be a bit larger than those of central and southern India, it could be related to size. Amur tiger skulls, however, are as long or longer and they don't show the concave profile. This means size, most probably, isn't the only reason. Tigers in northern India and Nepal live in or close to alluvial floodplaines. This is not true for central and southern India. Alluvial floodplaines attract large herbivores and tigers hunt them. There are different ways to overcome the resistance of very large animals, but it isn't about how they do it. Skullstructurewise, it would be about the way they use the skull to kill these large animals. It definitely would take a lot of time, meaning the skull would need to be reinforced. In what department? My take is the lower part of the skull (the mandibula) in particular. The upper skull is used to get a grip, meaning the canines have to be long, strong and curved. This is needed to be able to withstand a large force for a long time. The lower skull, however, is used to get to the right position and finish the job. The victim, more often than not, is killed by suffocation. As herbivores are large, this will take time. Tiger Raja, when he killed the female gaur, showed it is an exercise in both technique and strength. Endurance also is important. I'm not saying the mandibula is instrumental, but it could be close. If the mandibula is used in this way, the lower part of the sagittal crest will need to be reinforced. This could be the reason why the occiput is slightly elevated and not too wide. A wide occiput is not needed. It is about that part used to enable the lower jaw muscles the exercise maximum pressure for a prolonged period of time. A wide occiput means the muscles have to make a kind of detour. This will result in loss of strength. It could also result in damage to the tendons. The zygomata need to be reinforced as well, as they are instrumental in keeping the skull together. Experienced, older, tigers have the typical concave profile because they, more than younger animals, hunt large herbivores. All in all, one could say strength is instrumental for Indian and Nepal tigers hunting large herbivores in alluvial floodplaines. Skulls of large and experienced males adapted to this way of hunting. One result is a strengthened and elevated, but somewhat narrowed occiput. Another is an outspoken vault, a relatively short face, wide arches and a strong crest, especially in the posterior part (near the occiput). AMUR TIGERS - UPPER SKULL DEVELOPMENT, RESULTING IN A LONGER AND MORE ELEVATED SAGITTAL CREST AND LONGER UPPER CANINES According to V. Mazak, Amur tigers have slightly longer skulls than Indian tigers. Although the arches could be a bit wider, they seem to be relatively less robust. Another difference is Amur tigers have a relatively long, straight and elevated face, very long, robust, but straight upper canines and a straight sagittal crest. The crest, in contrast to Indian and Nepal tigers, starts directly after the os frontalis. The occiput usually is a bit more rounded and wider. Why is that? My take is it is a result of a more extensive use of the upper skull. Indian tigers use the upper skull to grab and hold their victim, which resulted in long and robust, but slightly curved upper canines. If we include the facial part of the skull, the curve becomes a bit more pronounced. The upper canines of Amur tigers, on the other hand, are longer, straighter and a bit less curved. When you include the front part of the skull, where the upper canines are anchored, the conclusion is the angle, compared to Indian tiger skulls, is less outspoken. In other words: the upper canines in Indian tiger skulls are used to cause damage, to hold and to withstand a strong force, whereas the upper canines in Amur tiger skulls, more than anything else, are used to cause significant damage. One could say Indian tigers are grabbers and holders, whereas Amur tigers are stabbers. Why the difference? One is Amur tigers hunt other animals. Deer are a major part of their diet, but so are wild boars and bears. In some seasons, in some parts of Russia, bears are more important than deer or wild boars. Deers are quickly killed, but wild boars and bears are robust and agile animals able to return the favour. Large herbivores can injure and kill tigers, but wild boars and bears probably do it more often. As a result, Amur tigers need them in a different way. What is known about the way Amur tigers hunt wild boars and bears? Sizewise, there isn't much to choose between male wild boars and male Amur tigers. Male Himalayan black bears usually are smaller than male Amur tigers, but male brown bears are larger. Amur tigers prefer to hunt animals a bit smaller than they are. Experienced tigers, however, also hunt animals of similar size (weight) or animals slightly larger than themselves. Although many think a tiger would need a clear advantage to stand a chance in fight with a boar or bear, an ambush wouldn't make a big difference in a fight with a robust and agile opponent. The reason is large wild boars and bears of, say, 150-200 kg. (332-442 lbs.), are too strong to be killed outright. Although some fights have been witnessed or pieced together, not much is known about confrontations between animals of (near) similar size. Based on what I read, I don't think it's likely a tiger will kill a bear in the same way as a large herbivore. In India, a hunt often culminates in an ambush, a rush, contact, a large herbivore going down and a prolonged struggle. It's advantage tiger most of the time. In Russia, chances are a hunt more often has the character of a fight. I don't know if Amur tigers use a hit and run strategy, but it's more than likely contact will be interrupted and resumed every now and then. Every time contact is resumed, the tiger will try to get a good hold (hence the large fore-arms and paws) and try to inflict as much damage as possible. The upper canines are not used as anchors, but to penetrate and damage. Biting is very different from holding. Holding an agile and powerful animal like a bear or a boar head on would be too risky. The tiger most likely wil try to get to the side or back and target the neck or shoulder. If the opponent weakens, the tiger will try to get a hold. If not, it could develop into a hit and run strategy. It's advantage tiger most of the time: if the fight isn't going his way, he can always get out. This is not true for the bear. I'm not saying the Russian Far East is a battleground with tigers and bears duking it out every few weeks or so, but it is likely Amur tigers who hunt bears and wild boars might get involved in bouts they would have preferred to avoid. Based on the information provided by Russian researchers, I'd say problems with wild boars and, in particular, bears often just can't be avoided. Just read the information about the 3 adolescent tigers released a year and a half ago. Well before they reached adulthood, they hunted large male wild boars and had to learn how to defend their kill from scavenging bears. A large size is helpful, but it wouldn't be decisive in a fight with a dangerous opponent. It could even be a handicap. Fights in this category are not only decided by sheer strength. Besides, Amur tigers, as a result of the testing conditions, have no need for 500 pounds and over. This is why only some parts of the body have been adapted. CONCLUSION All in all, I'd say Amur tigers, more than Indian or Nepal tigers, use their skull to bite as much as to hold. When biting with as much force as possible, pressure is not exercised at the muscles used to hold and chew. It is exercised at the top of the skull, just behind the os frontalis. Try it yourself. When you bite with force, you use different muscles and feel pressure at the top of the skull. When you chew or hold, pressure is exercised at the back of the lower jaw. This difference could result in the profile of the sagittal crest seen in both subspecies. Some confirmation can be seen in skulls of Caspian (male) tigers, who also specialised on wild boars. In some skulls, the crest is even more pronounced (elevated) than in Amur tiger skulls. One reason could be that wild boars in southwestern Asia are at least as large as those in southeastern Russia. The shape of the upper skull in Amur and Caspian tigers might be a result of the way it is used. A sagittal crest rising immediately behind the os frontalis could be a result of using muscles used to bite with maximum force at the tips of the canines. If the sagittal crest, on the other hand, is elevated near the occiput, it points towards intensive use of the lower jaw muscles. This idea is supported by the width of the zygomata in Indian tigers (pointing towards prolonged struggles with large animals) and bone density, resulting in a more robust, heavier, skull. The differences between the skulls of Caspian and Amur tigers could be a result of specialisation. Caspian tigers have a very shortened (bulldoglike) snout and more curved upper canines. As they specialised on wild boars, it could mean wild boars are killed in a different way than bears. More a question of combining stabbing, holding and jerking, perhaps. Amur tigers have relatively long faces, elevated snouts, a more horizintal axis of vision and less curved upper canines, meaning they, more than Caspian tigers, are biters. A biter doesn't need a curved upper canine, but a long, straitish and robust canine and, if possible, a bit of pressure on top of the canine to add more weight. It is about penetrating and causing significant damage. In order to get there, a strenghtened rostrum is needed. The rostrum in Amur tigers, although their skulls are less robust than skulls of Indian tigers, is very wide and strong. If we add the elevated and straight (horizontal) face, the elevated sagittal crest and the large size, the result is acute angles and vertical lines dominating horizontal lines. Exactly what a biter needs. In Indian tiger skulls, more sloped angles and horizontal lines dominate. This is what a powerhouse needs. One could say that a solitary big cat hunting large herbivores needs brute (skull) strength, resulting in a very powerful mandibula, a narrow and elevated occiput and wide arches; that a solitary big cat hunting wild boars needs a shortened face and snout and a well developed sagittal crest; and that a solitary big cat hunting (or fighting) bears of about similar size needs a combination of size (skull and upper canines) and agility. This results in a long and elevated skull dominated by vertical lines and a powerful anchor (referring to the rostrum) for the immense upper canines. Bone denseness and mass, apparently, are not needed. Sumatran tiger skulls, in a way (referring to a long and straitish face and very long upper canines), resemble Amur tiger skulls, but their rostrum isn't reinforced and neither is the sagittal crest. This means the long canines are more than enough to get the job done. A tiger faced with large bears needs strength, but in a different way than a tiger hunting large herbivores. The reason is one bite isn't enough. In order to be able to bite more than once, the tiger needs to be able to hold his opponent. This is why Amur tigers have exceptional fore- and upper-arms and large paws (large paws most probably not only are an adaption to snow, as other cats have relatively smaller paws). A FEW PICTURES a - Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata). Turkmenistan. The wild boar hunter. A biter. Watch the sagittal crest rising immediately behind the os frontalis, resulting in a convex profile:  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) from Nepal. Animals living in alluvial floodplains in Nepal and northern India often hunt large herbivores. Upper skull profile very vaulted and occiput strengthtened, moderately wide, triangular and elevated, resulting in a concave profile:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica). Profile more like in the Caspian tiger, but larger. A biter with exceptional upper canines hunting deer, wild boars and bears. Upper skull profile straight. Vault limited. Sagittal crest long, elevated and straight:  *This image is copyright of its original author d - This was the model used a long time ago. Didn't work as expected, as prone to breakage (Berlin Natural History Museum). Modern big cats, for this reason, have shorter and conical teeth:  *This image is copyright of its original author e - Wild boar from Turkey. The angle is deceptive, but he was large. As large as they come (781 lbs.). Not saying he would have been hunted by Caspian tigers, but they did hunt large boars. This is why conical teeth developed:  *This image is copyright of its original author
I think it is a rare photo from Dudhwa National Park India, Part of Tarai area. In this photo we can see that tiger comes very close to village house at night.
Fazlur Rahman Is the lucky photographer who capture this incident in mid of night, According to him A tiger climbed on a thatched roof in village Bhira. This place is on the edge of Kishanpur WLS. The residents of the house were awaked by the barking dogs. I was fortunate enough to click a unique snap when village dogs are trying to drive tigers from the village and the tiger was relaxing on roof top.  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (11-18-2016, 10:11 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(11-18-2016, 08:20 PM)Pckts Wrote: Why such the extreme difference in the Nepal skull? That may be because assam tigers would hunt huge prey like wild water buffalo, rhino and rarely elephants. Even nepal tigers confront rhinos and elephants. That may be one reason. Both groups live in grasslands where they have to push through the grasses (and may be other vegetation too) for movement. May be the head always confronts vegetation for the movement that may be the other reason. So, to minimize contact of head with vegetation they must have developed concave sagittal crest. Where as in siberia the vegetation is not as dense as in nepal and assam. They can atleast move freely without obstruction to head and also the largest prey they encounter is adult boar. But these are just my personal opinions. I may be wrong. 
New tiger weights. The following are weights posted by pckts and others from 'Tiger in Central india' and 'Impressive females' forum.
1) Tiger named poochkanta exceeded 230 kg. (Sinha via facebook)  *This image is copyright of its original author 2) Tiger Konda and Banda both exceeded scale of 225 kg in 2007, in Kanha national park. (Minh Ha via facebook). Tiger son of BMW of pench weighed 225 kg at 2.5 years old, after death. And a female tiger, also mentioned at the bottom, weighed 145 kg at 2.5 years old, weighed in 2008.  *This image is copyright of its original author Also an message confirming Jai was weighed a second time (Sadly, conflicting data shown) one 240 kg and another 215kg. Best go with original figure c.230kg from first weighing.  *This image is copyright of its original author A picture of the 145 kg tigress...  *This image is copyright of its original author Another female tiger. Credits to pckts weighed 150 kg... "T-2 of Panna who was originally Indri female junior of Kanha, weighed 150kg at 3.5 yrs old. Both of these weights were taken when they're darted." according to minh source... Indri female eating her dead cub. Another interesting behaviour. She was Indri female Junior and now she's T2 of Panna. OL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/...311389.cms  *This image is copyright of its original author
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
@Kingtheropod
Banda's tail was cut, and poochkata in hindi means cuttail so it is likely that poochkata and banda are the same animal.
This is the Famous Banda, grandfather of Umarpani
The famous Banda - a huge former dominant male tiger of Kanha zone (most notable for his partly cut tail and a torn ear). Photo Credits: Rajesh Bedi Original Link: http://www.writingthroughlight.com/conversation/naresh-bedi-a-wild-life/  *This image is copyright of its original author
WILDFACT PUBLICATIONS ON THE SIZE OF INDIAN AND NEPAL TIGERS
Nice info, PC and Pod. So what do we have on the weight of wild Indian and Nepal tigers today? a - A large male tiger in Royal Chitwan (Nepal) bottomed a 500-pound scale when Sunquist was there (in the seventies of the last century). Some years later, after Sunquist had left, this tiger bottomed a 600-pound scale. b - Seven Nepal males, including a young adult, averaged 520 pounds unadjusted and 488 adjusted (Sunquist, late seventies of the last century). c - Another male Nepal tiger bottomed a 600-pound scale in the early eighties of the last century (Dinerstein). c - A male tiger (Madla) in Panna bottomed a 500-pound scale. Another male in Panna, Hairyfoot, was said to be slightly larger. d - Three Nagarahole males averaged 480 pounds (U. Karanth) after they had been severely adjusted. Without adjustment, they well exceeded 500 pounds. e - A Ranthambore male tiger later transferred to a facility allegedly was just over 600 pounds the second time he was weighed. e - Quite a number of young (2-4 years of age) males bottomed 500-pound scales. The list could be longer, as we only seldom get good information (Indian biologists seem reluctant to inform the public on the size of Indian tigers). The question is why so many tigers bottom 500-pound scales. It could be that the scales used are unreliable, but it seems more likely that biologists underestimate the size of tigers. I don't know why that is, but I do know quite many biologists are sceptical about the averages found in India and Nepal. The reason is they think tigers were baited. As a result, not a few posters used the opportunity to question just about anything published on the size of Indian and Nepal tigers in the last 150 years. The result was (and is) many debates and a lot of confusion. Maybe this was the aim. As a result of the contradictory information about the size of tigers (as well as other big cats) I read, I decided to get more active some decades ago. For this reason, I bought every book I could find. I also decided to measure and weigh captive big cats myself. About 20 years ago, skulls were added. All in all, I measured about 400 big cat skulls. The time to post a number of tables now has arrived. Last winter, I started with tigers in northeast India (the Maharajah of Cooch Behar), northern India (Hewett) and Nepal (Smythies). More tables will follow in the next years. The first part of the series on the size of Indian and Nepal tigers immediately resulted in attempts to question, if not sideline, the results. I do not doubt more attempts will follow in the near future. In order to straighten things out once and for all, I decided to step it up. Tigerluver informed me about a possibility to publish papers and tables. It didn't take us long to decide to cooperate. This means we need good information on the size of tigers today. Anything you can find will help us. You can either post it in this thread or in a new thread Apollo will start soon. Thanks in advance. 
From intent to action: A case study for the expansion of tiger conservation from southern India Gubbi, Harish, Kolekar, Poornesha, Reddy, Mumtaz & Madhusudan, 2016
Highlights • To conserve the tiger it is critical to enable the persistence of the species across larger landscapes. • Establishing protected areas for tiger recovery remains one of the means of landscape approach. • While the gazetting of protected areas is necessary to enable this, it is not sufficient. • It is essential to benchmark and monitor the process that enable the recovery of tigers. Abstract: "To conserve a large, wide-ranging carnivore like the tiger, it is critical not only to maintain populations at key habitat sites, but also to enable the persistence of the species across much larger landscapes. To do this, it is important to establish well-linked habitat networks where sites for survival and reproduction of tigers are complemented by opportunities for dispersal and colonization. On the ground, expanding protection to areas with a potential for tiger recovery still remains the means of operationalizing the landscape approach. Yet, while the gazetting of protected areas is necessary to enable this, it is not sufficient. It is essential to benchmark and monitor the process by which establishment of protected areas must necessarily be followed by management changes that enable a recovery of tigers, their prey and their habitats. In this paper, we report a case study from the Cauvery and Malai Mahadeshwara Hills Wildlife Sanctuaries of southern India, where we document the infrastructural and institutional changes that ensued after an unprecedented expansion of protected areas in this landscape. Further, we establish ecological benchmarks of the abundance and distribution of tigers, the relative abundance of their prey, and the status of their habitats, against which the recovery of tigers in this area of vast conservation potential may be assessed over time." 
I am agree with @peter, I think that many people is underestimating the size of the Indian tigers. Most of the time we see figures of "about 227 kg" mentioned in literature and webpages, which is not correct, as many males are surpassing the 230 kg. New males has been captured, with no need of baits and no stomach content, and they are reaching the figures of the old hunting records.
Finally, many of the scales used are old or damaged, so they can't get the real weight of the animals, which normally bottomed the capacities. I think they should use digital scales like that of the Russian scientists, or large ones of up to 300 kg, like the one used by Dr Smuts in Kruger. For the moment, we have now about 20 male tigers weighed in modern days, so our sample is larger every day. Just a little correction, the scale used by Dr Chundawat was of c. 250 kg (550 lb), so that was the figure that bottomed the male tiger "Madla". I hope to join my data with that of @tigerluver and @Kingtheropod (and other too...) soon, in order to publish the first "Wildfacts - Table", created by the effort of all the posters. 
And all posters it will be, Guate. All of those interested will participate in some way and they will be mentioned. It will be a joint effort, that is.
The problem, however, is writing a paper, or more accurate a series of papers, about the size of tigers takes a lot of time. Not all of us have time. In this respect, things, at least for the moment, are a bit different for me and Tigerluver. This is why we decided to cooperate. When we finished the draft of the first paper, it will be posted in a new thread called 'WildFact Publications'. Those with a bit of time to spare and interested in participating will definitely have the opportunity to do so in the near future. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 10 Guest(s) |