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)
|
 (12-31-2017, 02:42 AM)Greatearth Wrote: peterYes, when a big cat is skinned, the dimensions are larger since it's been stretched. It's a good indicator of size in general but not specific proportions as compared to when the animal was alive. 
I’m not sure about actual reptile skin but I’d assume it to be larger as well unless the lack of fluid causes it shrink. I know when they shed their skin it’s because they’ve outgrown their old one as well as removing parasites and other irratents.
 (12-31-2017, 02:42 AM)Greatearth Wrote: peter First things first. There was a hunter called A. Pollock and there was Col. Pollok. A. Pollock hunted in southern India and measured tigers 'between pegs'. Col. Pollok hunted in Burma and Assam. I don't know what method he used, but I do know that co-writer W.S. Thom (see the scan below) measured tigers 'between pegs'. For now, I assume that Col. Pollok also measured tigers in that way. The tigers mentioned in the book (see the scan below) were shot between 1853-1869. Here's Col. Pollok:  *This image is copyright of its original author The longest tiger shot by Col. Pollok was 10.2 (309,88 cm.) in total length. He also shot a tiger of 10.1 (307,34 cm.). I'm not sure, but my guess is that the enormous skin was from the second tiger. Here's why:  *This image is copyright of its original author Over the years, I read a number of books about Assam tigers shot in the period 1870-1960. The Maharajah of Cooch Behar was one of the few who measured and weighed the animals shot by him and his guests. Although only few males got to 550 pounds (249,48 kg.), the averages were quite impressive. Still unsurpassed, I think. Assam tigers were robust animals. In total length, however, they more or less compared to tigers shot in the Central provinces. In Assam, most tigers were measured 'over curves' in those days. Males shot in the period 1870-1910 averaged about 9.8 in total length, whereas males shot in the Central provinces averaged 9.3 'between pegs' in the Central Provinces (tigers shot in the Central Provinces were measured 'between pegs' as a rule). As the difference between both methods was about 13,5 cm. in Assam (10 males), one could conclude that male tigers in Assam and the Central Provinces more or less compared in total length. Males shot in the Central Provinces, however, averaged 420 pounds, whereas males shot in Assam averaged 461 pounds. Based on what I have, I'd say they also were larger-skulled. Although they were a bit bigger than tigers shot in the Central Provinces, the Central Provinces produced more exceptions. I have reliable information about males well exceeding 10 feet in total length measured 'between pegs', whereas males exceeding that mark in Assam seem to be few and far between. (12-31-2017, 02:59 AM)Greatearth Wrote: This Bengal tiger is known as huge (365 cm) as well, but I think size of this tiger is wrong. DUNBAR BRANDER ON THE SIZE OF INDIAN TIGERS A.A. Dunbar Brander ('Wild Animals of Central India' - great book) was as experienced as they come regarding tigers, methods and measurements. In his opinion, the longest Indian tigers could reach 11 feet in total length when measured 'over curves'. This means that an exceptional male, in his day (a century ago), could reach 10.5 - 10.6 (317,50 - 320,04 cm.) in total length when measured 'between pegs'. I know of two males that exceeded that mark. One of them was the famous tiger shot by Hasinger in northern India in the sixties of the last century. This exceptional male was 10.7 (322,58 cm.) in total length measured 'between pegs' and 11.1 (337,82 cm.) 'over curves'. BEFORE 1850 Before the rifle was introduced, there were much more tigers. More important was that they often got the opportunity to get to their potential. When the great turkey shoot began in the second half of the 19th century, hunters had no experience with measuring big cats. When they had agreed on a method ('over curves'), reports about 12 feet tigers (measured 'over curves') appeared every now and then. After 1890 or so, when most of British India had been shot over and hunters saw the need for protected reserves and restricted hunting seasons, reports about 12-feet tigers disappeared. As the disappearance of extra-large tigers coincided with an eruption of books about 'sport' in British India, many took reports about 12 feet tigers shot well before their time with a lot of salt: tapes had been tampered with (a); the method hadn't been applied in the correct way (b); the tiger had been measured by inexperienced villagers working for a landlord who didn't like small tigers ©; they had been too eager (d), or there had been no reliable witnesses (g). In other words: they responded in the same way as people today when confronted with something considered as out of the ordinary. FACTS Outlook and prejudice, however, are as unreliable as 11-inch tapes. It is about the facts and it is a fact that people who really knew their business had reported about extraordinary animals in the period in which hunting tigers was still considered uncommon (1820-1860). They hunted in extended and virgin regions where animals had never been hunted before. Regions that still produce tigers of eceptional size today. To give you just one example of the effect hunting has on size. In the period 1880-1940, northern India was shot over. In Nepal, tigers were only very seldom hunted in that period. Same region and same tigers, but male tigers shot in Nepal were about 4 inches longer than those shot in northern India. I'm not saying that tigers before, say, 1800 were larger than those of today, but it is likely that the sheer number of tigers, the unrestricted gene flow, the pristine conditions and the opportunity to grow to old age would have resulted in a few exceptional animals every now and then. If exceptional male tigers in Chitwan (Nepal) reached 10.9 'over curves' (327,66 cm.) and 705 pounds (319,79 kg.) in the thirties and forties of the last century, male tigers of exceptional size could have exceeded that mark in a period in which tigers were not molested at all. HOW TO EXPRESS SIZE Length is one factor to express the size of a big cat. There are others that could be more important, like weight and skull size. A century ago, there was a debate about tigers, methods and measurements in what was then British India. Here's part of a letter that was published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS). The first tiger, although a bit shorter and bulkier, more or less compares to the tiger shot by the Viceroy in 1914. It is about the second tiger, shot in southern India. With a head cirfumference of 3.5 (111,76 cm.), a fore-arm of 2.10 (86,36 cm.) and a chest of 6.1 (185,42 cm.), he was as robust as they come:  *This image is copyright of its original author This tiger was shot and measured by someone able to count to 3, meaning the report can't be dismissed. Was it the only exceptional male shot in that period of time in that region? No. I have quite a few reports about very large males shot in southern India. Same for the Central provinces, Assam and the Himalayas. TO CONCLUDE Some reports about extra-large tigers are unreliable. No question. This, however, doesn't mean that all reports of experienced woodsmen about exceptional big cats can be dismissed out of hand. Would-be biologists are trained to be wary of reports about extra-large tigers. The result is that they have been misguided, if not misinformed, by professionals. They found out when they started fieldwork in India and Nepal in the seventies of the last century. In that period, they used 500-pound (226,80 kg.) scales. Wild male tigers only very seldom get to that mark in most regions in Asia today, but tigers in India and Nepal are large animals. Not seldom, males bottomed the scale. As a result, biologist were unable to give detaied information about weight. In other words: misinformation resulted in inaccuracy and confusion. In order to prevent more problems, 600-pound scales were introduced. Still inadequate. In Nepal, two male tigers bottomed that scale in the eighties of the last century. One of the male tigers that bottomed a 600-pound scale was known as the Sauraha tiger. The last time he was darted, he drowned in a pool. My guess is he was weighed after he had drowned, but I'm not sure about that. Anyhow. He bottomed a 600-pound scale. Some biologists didn't believe the report on the weight. Yamaguchi and Kitchener said it wasn't clear if the tiger had been baited. This although they knew that the tiger had a collar (...). Maybe the real weight was as low as 500 pounds or less less, they said. I'm not making this up. My advice is to go on your own. Every time you read a book in which an extra-large big cat features, try to find as much as you can about the writer, the tiger and the circumstances. Use your common sense and your training. In order lo learn about size and measurements, go to a facility or a zoo. Measure and weigh captive big cats if possible. Talk to people in the know. Visit natural history museums and measure skulls. If you doubt a report, contact your friends over here. And forget about 'accepted' standards.
Unique fatality due to claw injuries in a tiger attack: a case report.
This paper describes a unique case of a fatal tiger attack in the wild. In the present case, a tiger fatally mauled a 34-year-old female with its claws, instead of the usual mechanism of killing by the bite injury to the neck. The autopsy revealed multiple fatal and non-fatal injuries caused by the tiger claws. The characteristic injuries due to the tooth impacts were absent as the teeth of the offending tiger were either fallen or non-functional. To the best of our knowledge, probably this rare case would be the first reported human fatality due to the tiger claw injuries in the world. The purpose of the present article is to highlight the fatal injuries due to the tiger claws, as the claw-induced fatal injuries in a tiger attack are not reported in the medico-legal literature. Moreover, this report would be an illustrative one for differentiation between the fatal injuries due to the claws and tooth impacts in a tiger attack. Furthermore, the present report establishes the importance of the tiger claws as a source of fatal injuries in a tiger attack.  *This image is copyright of its original author https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25082732
(01-01-2018, 12:22 PM)Betty Wrote: Unique fatality due to claw injuries in a tiger attack: a case report. What stuck was the remark on uniqueness: " ... To the best of our knowledge, probably this rare case would be the first reported human fatality due to the tiger claw injuries in the world ... " (from the abstract). The paper published in Pub Med in November 2014 could be the first of its kind published in a specific magazine, but it wasn't the first time a human was killed by a wild tiger unable to use its teeth. Here's the first paragraphs of Kenneth Anderson's story 'From mauler to man-eater': " ... This story is the sequel to two episodes I have recorded in the earlier books of adventures. The first of these began when a tiger began to behave very strangely by mauling the graziers of the hamlet of Rajnagara, at the foot of the Dimbum escarpment in North Coimbatore district in what is now known as Madras State. The unique feature was that this tiger never bit any of its human victims nor was there any authentic proof that it had killed or eaten anybody. It merely rushed at its victim and, when close enough, raised itself on its hind legs and severely mauled him with the claws of its forefeet in the region of the head, chest, back and arms. I attempted to bag this elusive animal, but failed completely. Then the scene changed to a very much wider area of operations, varying from sixty to one hundred miles north and northeast of Rajnagara. A tiger killed and carried off a boy at another little Hamlet in the jungle, called Pegepalyam. That boy was the first of several victims, some of whose remains were recovered. The bodies bore unmistakable evidence of having been severely mauled by the claws of the tiger which had attacked them, while teeth marks, other than where the flesh had been eaten, were conspicuously absent. In one case, two men who had climbed up a tree saw their companion actually being mauled by this tiger, which attacked him on two separate occasions, clawing him across the face the first time, and killing him with a blow of its paw the second time, before it carried him off. The human remains that had been found indicated that there was apparently nothing wrong with the animal's teeth or jaws, as had first been conjectured. For he had eaten a good meal from each, which would hardly have been possible with impaired teeth or a broken or otherwise maimed jaw. His constant mode of assault, however, which was by clawing and striking with its forepaws and not by biting, appeared to indicate beyond doubt that this animal was none other than the earlier 'Mauler of Rajnagara' that had strayed northward into an area of jungle far larger than his original habitat ... " ('The Kenneth Anderson Omnibus, Volume 1, Thirteenth impression, 2012, Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, pp. 693-694). There was another tiger in southern India that killed humans with his forefeet and claws. This tiger used his claws to scape the flesh of its victims. Anderson was able to kill this man-eater. It was a large male that had been badly wounded by a hunter. I'll try to find the story. Here's a scan of the cover of 'The Kenneth Anderson Omnibus':  *This image is copyright of its original author
12 PHOTOGRAPHS (and 1 painting) THAT STUCK
01 - Old India (B. Berg):  *This image is copyright of its original author 02 - Pugmark of a very large male tiger close to Bhutan (B. Berg):  *This image is copyright of its original author 03 - Male tiger following elephants with a calf Dudhwa (S. Vats) - Could have been posted by Roflcopters (don't remember):  *This image is copyright of its original author 04 - Dholes and tigress (Ramakrishnan):  *This image is copyright of its original author 05 - Male tiger Bandipur (P. Ross):  *This image is copyright of its original author 06 - Similipal black tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author 07 - Daba Mountains, China (Q. Liao). Evidence of wild tigers in 2010-2011:  *This image is copyright of its original author 08 - Sumatra (Phatio):  *This image is copyright of its original author 09 - Turan tiger (painting from Kaspitigerforum):  *This image is copyright of its original author 10 - Russian Far East. Orphaned Amur tiger cubs:  *This image is copyright of its original author 11 - Russian Far East. Following a tiger in the snow:  *This image is copyright of its original author 12 - Nilgiris, India. Young male white tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author 13 - Pugmarks of a large tiger, Manas, 2017. First posted by Roflcopters a few days ago:  *This image is copyright of its original author
@peter :
About #1403: The 9th photo you showed is a tiger painting realised by a french artist Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824-1904). Like other artists of the XIXth century, he idealized his depictions while completely ignoring the reality. Thus, you can see here a tiger in a desert (???) spying on an army... Completely unrealistic ! But the european artists discovered the exotic animals...  *This image is copyright of its original author An other painting about tiger: "Tiger à l' affut"  *This image is copyright of its original author The same with a lion ("Lion on the watch")  *This image is copyright of its original author Like other lot of artist of this century lions are always "head up" while the tigers looked sneaky... See the "The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer":  *This image is copyright of its original author An other link about this artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-L%C3%...9r%C3%B4me
Addition to the previous #: He realized two works about this thema "tiger spying", the other one is the one below already showed in the #1403. The sky isn't the same and so on... Dimension of this one: 800X556 mm, the other one: 450 X 315mm.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
 (01-02-2018, 02:16 PM)Spalea Wrote: @peter : I cant see how the tiger is sneaky in that picture.. They look to be both looking up 
From Big Cat's Canines and Claws thread, written by @peter:
A - THE ESSENCE OF CATS 1 - Offence All cats are professional hunters living on the edge. As true specialists, they are able to bring down animals larger and heavier than themselves. In order to do that, they (apart from power, explosive speed, specific equipment and athleticism) need instinct, training and a kind of energy difficult to describe. Even with all that, it takes years of training to tackle large animals in a safe way. 2 - Defence After killing an animal, they need to protect their kill from scavengers. Some scavengers operate in groups, but other scavengers are large enough to displace a cat on their own. A cat co-existing with scavengers able to take his kill has 4 options to protect his kill: eat as quickly as possible (a); move the kill out of reach (b); adopt a social lifestyle © or face the scavenger (d). B - DEFENCE IN BIG CATS 1 - Panthera family All 5 members of Panthera (P. leo, P. tigris, P. onca, P. pardus and p. uncia) are large cats (> 50 pounds). The puma compares to a degree. Of these 6 species, 3 (F. concolor, P. pardus and P. onca) are known to climb trees when cornered. Lions are social big cats, enabling them to defend their kill from scavengers. I'm not sure about the snow leopard (P. uncia), but it's likely that they face scavengers (wolves and bears) on a regular basis as well. As they live in elevated regions, they can use rocky outcrops to get safe. As they're not larger than wolves and smaller than bears, it's likely they will use this strategy when faced with a large scavenger. 2 - Tiger Tigers can climb trees, but I never heard of an adult tiger (male or female) climbing a tree when faced by a scavenger. In Indonesia, they face sun bears and wild boars. In mainland Asia, they face canids (wolves and dholes) and omnivores (wild boars and bears). In the Russian Far East, wolves are hunted by Amur tigers at times. Dholes also are no match for them, but these canids have displaced tigers in the past and are able to tree leopards in India. Only very few wild boars will try to displace a tiger, but Himalayan black bears and black grizzlies of all sizes scavenge tiger kills whenever possible. If a large male Himalayan black bear can displace a male Indian tiger (see 'The Temple Tiger', Jim Corbett), a male brown bear (Ursus arctos lasiotus) should be able to displace a male Amur tiger. Research has shown that bears displace Amur tigresses or share kills made by tigresses with them, but male Amur tigers are not often displaced by bears. C - SKULL STRUCTURE A professional hunter like a cat, skullstructurewise, needs to find a balance between offence (hunting) and defence (protecting a kill). Based on the skulls I saw, I'd say that hunting is more important than defence. In brown bears, it seems to be the other way round. Their skulls, especially in the posterior part, are heavily reinforced, allowing them to take a lot of damage. I've seen many big cat skulls. Every species has a slightly different structure. Lion skulls, and those of old males in particular, remind me of bear skulls in that they too seem to be reinforced in a similar way. The result often is a large and 'backheavy' skull. So much so, that they seem 'overskulled' at times. Tiger skulls are shorter as a rule, but they have (relatively) longer and heavier canines and a wider, reinforced, rostrum. They also seem to have a different purpose in that they appear to serve as platforms for the large upper canines. In this respect, they remind me of battlecruisers. Not battleships, as these are too heavy, too slow and, for that reason, ineffective in battle. Tiger skulls often do not seem to be as robust as lion skulls. This impression, however, is largely deceptive. Tiger skulls are more vaulted, which results in more acute angles, especially in the anterior part of the skull. Acute angles and dense bones allow tigers to generate a lot of pressure when biting. As the canines are longer and heavier compared to those of other big cat species, the result is more pressure at the tip of the canines. The relatively wide arches enable tigers to keep the pressure up in the region of the carnassials as well. All in all, the skull structure enables tigers to deliver a penetrating bite. Lion skulls have a somewhat different purpose. The canines serve as large 'icepicks' enabling them to penetrate the skin of a large animal and hold on. The, enlarged and elevated, maxillary bone (snout) and the wide and reinforced os frontalis (the bone on top of the skull) enable lions to deal with immense pressure generated by struggling large prey animals. Lion skulls seem to be the reinforced top end of a long, more or less horizontal, cable constructed with the purpose of keeping a large ship anchored, whereas tiger skulls seem to serve as big gun platforms constructed to generate maximum force from top to bottom. Hold and maul in order to tire (lion) versus pin and penetrate in order to kill as quickly as possible (tiger), one could say. Lions are social animals. All adults participate during a hunt, but females usually take care of the hard work. For them, a functional skull matters. The result is a skull similar to a skull of a professional big game hunter, albeit somewhat longer in the anterior part (longer snout). Male lions also hunt, but not as often as females. When they participate, they often pin the victim, enabling the females to go for the kill. They can kill a large animal on their own, but their skull is reinforced to withstand pressure of struggling large prey animals and take damage in intraspecific conflicts. This could be the reason why male lions only seldom target the skull of their opponent during a fight. Male tigers, on the other hand, deliberately target the skull of their opponent in a fight. D - ANALOGY Tigers are solitary big game hunters. In order to overcome a large animal, they need to be efficient. The less time they need, the better. Tigers need power, but not too much weight. Less weight results in more speed, more agility and better angles. Strength is not a result of size or weight, but of speed, acute angles and an effective construction (simplicity). Only the teeth department needs to be reinforced and that's what we see. For a nice analogy, read a bit about tanks. I propose to start with WWII. Watch the Russian T-34 in particular. Best tank of that war, many German generals thought. The counters they later introduced (Tiger and Panther) were as good or better, but heavier, more complicated and, therefore, less reliable. They often broke down. As spare parts were difficult to get, not a few had to be left. Production also was complicated, which had an effect as well. The Germans later turned to self-propelled antitank vehicles. They did ok, especially those with the effective 88 mm. gun. The reason, again, was simplicity. That and large numbers. E - NASALS Tigers don't have narrow nasals to accomodate large canines. They don't need wide nasals. They need large canines; a reinforced rostrum; a vaulted maxillary bone to create the angles needed; wide arches; a straight or slightly concave mandible, and a strong sagittal crest slightly elevated at the end. All parts and angles are needed to enable a big bite. Tiger skulls are functional. Same for all wild animals, by the way. The exceptions (like the polar bear), often are a result of a transition. F - TO CONCLUDE What you read, to an extent, was exaggerated in order to highlight the main differences between lion and tiger skulls. The differences described, however, are real and they are structural. When you have some experience, you can see it at a glance. This regarding skulls of wild animals. Skulls of captive big cats are different in that they are flatter, wider and not as dense. Furthermore, many skulls have superfluous growths. Although lion skulls seem more affected by captivity, tiger skulls are also affected in that not a few lost a number of typical features over time. The differences between Panthera leo and Panthera leo zoo often are remarkable. Same for Panthera tigris and Panthera tigris zoo. Bones are a result of function, not a result of a need for more room or less. Tigers generally have longer and narrower nasals for a reason and the reason isn't canines (only). They live in a different environment and hunt in a different way than lions. Lions are social big cats. Like in humans, this will result in less adaptions over time. In solitary big cats, often specialists, the relation between function and environment generally is more outspoken.
@
I expressed a tendancy of this century... the lion is royal, the tiger is sneaky, yes... "Royal tiger" by Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863): This tiger isn't a tiger, but an ostrich, the head on the sand and I don't insist... What he royal ? He is afraid that the sky falls onto his head ?  *This image is copyright of its original author The same attitude (lying) from the same artist (Delacroix) with the lion: " a lion in the desert"  *This image is copyright of its original author
 *This image is copyright of its original author Ohhh by some german dude named lobel who died in 1827
@
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 5 Guest(s) |