There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(02-03-2018, 08:58 AM)peter Wrote: V. MAZAK - 'DER TIGER' (third edition, 1983) - STANDING HEIGHT OF CAPTIVE TIGERS
a - Introduction
Many years ago, I found a copy of Mazak's great book 'Der Tiger' in a small bookshop somewhere in Amsterdam. Everything you want to know about tigers is there. I read it many times and still consider it a classic. My advice is to buy it when you can.
One of the things that stood out was the information about wild Amur tigers. Back then, in the early seventies of the last century, Amur tigers were considered an enigma. There were a lot of rumours, but nobody was able to provide good information. Mazak opened a door that had been closed for a very long time, that is. The reason was that Mazak, able in Russian, had contacted a number of Russian biologists and hunters.
Apart from Amur tigers, something else stood out. Mazak's paragraph on the size of tigers ('Die Größe der Tiger') is long (pp. 178-196) and has a lot of information. Quite a bit of it was unique back then. The reason was that he had done a lot of work himself. He not only had measured a lot of skulls, but he had also measured and weighed a number of captive Amur tigers. Apart from that, he collected information about the actual standing height of captive tigers in European zoos.
This post is about the standing height of captive tigers in European zoos. Poster 'Betty' had a question about the way the height was measured. I think it's best to let Mazak answer that one himself.
b - On the method used to measure the standing height of captive tigers
Here's a scan of page 179 of the third edition of Mazak's book. It is about the paragraph in red. Mazak said he had collected information about the actual standing height of captive tigers in a number of European zoos. My guess is that most of the information was collected in the sixties and early seventies of the last century.
Here's a summary of the paragraph (in German).
A scale was placed in front of the bars. When the tiger was standing directly in front of the scale, the measurement was recorded. Mazak said that every tiger was measured in the same position and in the same way. Applying the method took a bit of time, but it produced results.
I tested this method in the facility I visited in the nineties of the last century. I placed a steel tape in front of the cage and watched the tiger for some time. Every time he was right in front of the scale and not moving, a measurement was recorded. In order to prevent errors, I used a margin of 2 cm. Example: when I saw the tiger was about 90 cm. when standing right in front of the scale, I recorded a score of 89-91 cm.
When I had 10 scores, I left the room. A keeper instructed by someone else was then asked to repeat the experiment. Next day, there was a follow-up. We only compared the scores when the experiment was finished.
As for the conclusion. If different people use this method to measure the actual standing height of one and the same tiger in the same cage, the averages, based on at least 10 scores, compare. With 'compare', I mean that the difference between the averages never exceeded 1 inch (2,54 cm.). The average difference was about 1 cm. only. This to say that the method described by Mazak produced reliable results every time it was used.
Based on what I read, I concluded that Mazak himself participated every now and then:
*This image is copyright of its original author
c - Standing height of captive tigers in European zoos
The table below was posted before. In order to get to more clarity, I decided to add a few lines. Horizontal red lines were used to distinguish between the 5 subspecies. Horizontal blue lines were used to distinguish between males and females. All tigers were measured in the sixties and early seventies of the last century:
*This image is copyright of its original author
As to the averages found. In males, the difference between altaica (101,86 cm.), tigris (93,30 cm.), corbetti (88,00 cm.), amoyensis (84,00 cm.) and sumatrae (77,17 cm.) is quite outspoken. In females, the differences between altaica (85,00 cm.), tigris (82,00 cm.), corbetti (79,25 cm.), amoyensis (77,50 cm.) and sumatrae (67,00 cm.) are more limited.
Mazak measured 7 adult male Amur tigers. On page 180 of his book, he added the standing height of a very large male Amur tiger in the Duisburg Zoo. This giant, not in the table, was 110,00 cm. at the shoulder. If we add the 3 males I measured in a facility, the average of 11 captive male Amur tigers is 102,41 cm.
Some time ago, I also posted information about the actual standing height of what must have been Indochinese tigers (Panthera tigris corbetti) and lions from northern Africa in the Paris Zoo ('Jardin des Plantes'). The average of the Indochinese tigers more or less compared to the averages of P. tigris corbetti in Mazak's table. Male lions from northern Africa were a bit taller (just over 3 feet). They more or less compared to captive male Indian tigers.
The differences between males and females are most outspoken in altaica (17,41 cm. or 20,48%) and sumatrae (10,17 cm. or 15,18%). In Indian tigers (11,30 cm. or 13,78%), Indochinese tigers (8,75 cm. or 11,04%) and Chinese tigers (6,50 cm. or 8,39%), the difference was less outspoken.
I might have seen male Amur tiger 'Nicolajev' (see the table) in the Rotterdam Zoo ('Blijdorp'). Compared to their neighbours (African lions), the Amur tigers I saw were very old, very tall and very long, but thin as a rail. The keeper told me he had the skin of another captive male Amur tiger at home.
As to the very large Duisburg Zoo Amur tiger. He was born in 1965 in the Rotterdam Zoo. Later, he was transported to Duisburg. In 1970, at age 5,5, he was 110,00 cm. at the shoulder (actual standing height) and 320 cm. in total length (measured in a straight line). His weight was estimated at 280-300 kg. (618-662 pounds). His mother was caught in the Ussuri region. The parents of his father were caught in the same region.
In the early eighties of the last century, I saw a male Amur tiger in the zoo of what was then West-Berlin. Although taller than the Duisburg Zoo tiger, he wasn't as robust. The parents of this tiger were caught near the Ussuri river.
Amur tigresses average 85 cm. at the shoulder, but I saw a few definitely exceeding 3 feet in different circuses. One of them, although fit in all respects, was very close to 440 pounds. Her parents were caught near the Ussuri as well. The trainer told me she wasn't interested in mating. The only male she liked was a very old male tiger caught in the late sixties in northeastern China (Manchuria). The trainer said it was the largest cat he had ever seen. The photograph showed a tiger of prehistoric size, far exceeding the others I had seen. I did my best, but the photograph wasn't for sale. The tiger had saved his life on two occasions. The trainer confirmed what I had seen in facilities and zoos: tigers and brown bears don't mix.
Over the years, I saw a lot of captive big cats. An adult male standing 3 feet at the shoulder is impressive. A male of 3.3 is very large and a male of 3.6 is exceptional. I saw 2 male Amur tigers exceeding 3.8. Based on what I saw, I'd say that captive male Amur tigers are the tallest big cats. Wild Namibian lions, however, seem to compare. I'm very interested in the way they were measured.
Shoulder height data from wild Namibian lions are surprising, and they do not look outstanding based on the pictures of the measurement site.
In 1965, people shoot dead a male armed Southern China tiger in Changde Hefu. South China tiger total length 316.6cm and in weight 192.5kg, Shoulder height 156.6cm. I think the lions in Namibia are measured in a very similar way.
02-07-2018, 10:34 AM( This post was last modified: 02-07-2018, 10:50 AM by peter )
BETTY
a - The measurement and weight of the Chinese tiger in your previous post
You posted the same picture (referring to the tiger in post 1,474) some time ago. Back then, however, the numbers (length and weight) were different. I want to use the information, as there's not much reliable information about the size of Panthera tigris amoyensis.
Can you get to a conclusion on that particular male tiger? The more you find, the better. Thanks.
b - The intention of this thread
This thread is dedicated to wild tigers. Information about captive tigers can be used at times, but only when we have no other option. Example.
It is not possible to measure the actual standing height of wild tigers. For this reason, biologists measure the length of the front leg. As they use different methods, the results often are confusing. In order to get to some clarity, I decided to post the table from Mazak's book ('Der Tiger'). The photographs you and Amnon posted were much appreciated, as they show that the actual standing height of captive Amur tigers, as Mazak concluded, is impressive at times.
In order to answer your question, I'll do one more post on an exceptional captive tiger. After that post, I propose to return to wild tigers.
a - The measurement and weight of the Chinese tiger in your previous post
You posted the same picture (referring to the tiger in post 1,474) some time ago. Back then, however, the numbers (length and weight) were different. I want to use the information, as there's not much reliable information about the size of Panthera tigris amoyensis.
Can you get to a conclusion on that particular male tiger? The more you find, the better. Thanks.
b - The intention of this thread
This thread is dedicated to wild tigers. Information about captive tigers can be used at times, but only when we have no other option. Example.
It is not possible to measure the actual standing height of wild tigers. For this reason, biologists measure the length of the front leg. As they use different methods, the results often are confusing. In order to get to some clarity, I decided to post the table from Mazak's book ('Der Tiger'). The photographs you and Amnon posted were much appreciated, as they show that the actual standing height of captive Amur tigers, as Mazak concluded, is impressive at times.
In order to answer your question, I'll do one more post on an exceptional captive tiger. After that post, I propose to return to wild tigers.
The length units and weight units used by China in the last century are different from those of the current international units. In order to facilitate understanding, I will explain the unit conversion. The length unit used by this South China tiger is "shi chi", the weight unit is "shi jin", 1 "shi chi" equals to 33.33 cm, and 1 "shi jin" equals to 0.5 kg.
In conclusion, the total length is 9.5 "shi chi" (equal to 316.6cm), body weight is 385 "shi jin" (equal to 192.5kg), shoulder height is 4.7 "shi chi" (equal to 156.6cm).
It is worth mentioning that the body of the tiger's circumference is 6 "shi chi"（equal to 199.98cm）, so I think that for those big cats unreasonable data, need to be treated with care.
02-08-2018, 09:54 AM( This post was last modified: 02-08-2018, 12:51 PM by peter )
BETTY
Thanks for the clarification. I assume the measurement was taken 'over curves'. I'll use the information for the table on Panthera tigris amoyensis. It was a male tiger of 192,5 kg. (424 pounds) shot in 1965. In which Province is Changde Hefu?
a - The Duisburg Zoo tiger
When I posted the table with information about the standing height of captive tigers in European zoos from V. Mazak's book 'Der Tiger', you asked for a bit more on the Duisburg Zoo tiger. This tiger is not in the table, but Mazak was informed about the size of this tiger by the director of the Duisburg Zoo Dr. W. Gewalt in a letter.
I decided to scan the page. It's about the paragraph in red directly below the table:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It's in German. Here's a translation of the sentence you're interested in:
" ... This animal (Mazak is referring to the male tiger 'Amur' from the Duisburg Zoo), born in the Rotterdam Zoo (in The Netherlands) in 1965 ..., stood 110 cm. at the shoulder at age 5,5 (sic!) (Zoo director Dr. W. Gewalt, in litt. 8.12.1970) ... ".
In the same sentence, Mazak added that his mother had been captured in the Ussuri regio. Both parents of his father had been captured in the same region as well. As the Duisburg Zoo tiger was born in 1965, it's very likely that his mother had been captured in the late fifties of the last century.
Here's one more photograph of this exceptional male. The other tiger, by the way, is an adult female (and not a cub):
*This image is copyright of its original author
b - The Sungari river tiger
In 1965, at age 5, the Duisburg Zoo tiger was 320 cm. in total length 'between pegs' and estimated at 280-300 kg.
I've read reports about wild male Amur tigers of similar size, but all of them were dismissed as 'unreliable' by a number of biologists going over all reports about a decade ago. One of the few records considered as 'reliable' was from Baikov. The 560-pound tiger he shot near the Korean border in 1911 still tops the official table. Here he is:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Most of the other records of Baikov, however, were dismissed.
The Jankowski's also hunted Amur tigers. In 1943, they and a Korean professional hunter shot a very large male tiger near the Sungari river in Manchuria. In one of his letters to V. Mazak, W.J. Jankowski, one of the sons of J.M. Jankowski, wrote that this male, at 11.6 in total length (most probably measured 'over curves'), was estimated at " ... not less than 300 kg. ... " ('Der Tiger', pp. 189). A few days before he was shot, the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear, of which they found a leg and the head.
Not so long ago, poster Warsaw (Carnivora Forum) said that a book written by one of the Jankowski's had been published. The Sungari river tiger was mentioned. According to Warsaw, the length mentioned by V. Mazak (11.6 'over curves') was the length of the skin. He added that he found nothing about the bear allegedly killed by the tiger.
Some posters informed me about the post of Warsaw and asked for my opinion. All I can say is that V. Mazak, regarding the Sungari river tiger, referred to J.M. Jankowski's letters. He also published a photograph of the tiger in his book:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Watch the part at the right bottom. It says: photograph taken by W.J. Jankowski. This is the same W.J. Jankowski who featured in Mazak's book. The reason he featured? He and V. Mazak corresponded. Mazak, that is to say, got letters from W.J. Jankowski. Not one letter, but letters. Watch the s at the end of letter.
Mazak was much impressed by the information provided by W.J. Jankowski. On page 185, he wrote he considered him as an authority on Amur tigers. At page 186, Mazak said that W.J. Jankowski, more than once, wrote that the Sungari river tiger was the largest Amur tiger he, his brothers and his father, ever saw. On page 189, quoting from the same letter of W.J. Jankowski of May 8, 1970, Mazak added that they had to cut the tiger in 9 pieces to get him out of the forest. As each of the 9 men carried a piece of 30-40 kg., W.J. Jankowski thought the tiger was not less than 300 kg. The additional information about the very large male brown bear killed by the tiger is in the same letter.
c - Jankowski's book
W.J. Jankowski's published a book not so long ago. Warsaw (Carnivora Forum) apparently read the part on the Sungari river tiger. According to him, Jankowski said the tiger wasn't 11.6 in total length. The skin was 11.6. Warsaw also didn't find anything about the bear. What to say?
I didn't read the book. As far as I know, it wasn't translated. That leaves speculation.
The tiger was shot in 1943, when W.J. Jankowski was a young man. In 1970, 27 years later, Jankowski and Mazak corresponded. In his letters, Jankowski informed Mazak about the largest tiger he, his father and his brothers had ever shot. He sent him a photograph and added the tiger had killed a very large male brown bear. Mazak published the photograph and added it had been taken by W.J. Jankowski (see above). The information on the bear was added. Almost 70 years after the tiger was shot, Jankowski contradicted Mazak on the size of the tiger. There's no information about the bear in his book. What's going on?
Based on what we have, there are four possibilities:
a - Jankowski misinformed Mazak in 1970. As a result, Mazak misinformed the public.
b - There was a misunderstanding, which resulted in misinformation.
c - Mazak deliberately misinformed the public.
d - Jankowski deliberately misinformed the public.
Ad a - Unlikely. In the third edition of his book, on page 183, Mazak admitted that he had been misled by hunters on the size of Amur tigers in the past. For this reason, he decided to use records of tigers measured 'between pegs' only. He also decided to measure (captive) Amur tigers himself. As a result, Mazak was well informed about the size of Amur tigers. He knew that very large males could get to 10.6 or thereabout in total length 'between pegs'. The photograph he got, made by Jankowski himself, shows a very large wild male Amur tiger, similar in size to the Duisburg Zoo tiger. Measured 'over curves', the Sungari River tiger was 11.6. Measured 'between pegs', the tiger could have been 10.10 or thereabout. He was a bit longer than the Duisburg Zoo tiger (10.6 'between pegs') and the Prague Zoo tiger (similar in size), that is. Jankowski told him that the tiger was by far the largest he, his father and his brothers had ever seen. Dunbar Brander also thought that exceptional male tigers could get to 11 feet in total length 'between pegs'. As to Jankowski. The last thing a hunter wants, is a quick dismissal.
Ad b - Unlikely. Mazak corresponded with more than one hunter, naturalist and biologist. He was able in Russian.
Ad c - Unlikely. Mazak knew that he had been misled by hunters about the size of Amur tigers. As a result, he lost credit. This is why he decided to measure tigers himself. It's true he mixed weights of captive and wild Amur tigers in the third edition of his book, but a lack of accuracy as a result of a lack of records is different from deliberate misinformation. It's also true he was fascinated by the animals he studied, but one needs a strong drive in order to be able to write a book. Based on what I have, I'd say that his conclusions on the size of tigers have been correct. If anything, he was a bit too conservative.
Ad d - Likely. Jankowski wrote his book more than 70 years after the event, when he was an old man. Maybe he sent everything he had on the Sungari river tiger to Mazak in 1970. Maybe the trusted memory had deserted him to a degree. Maybe the focus in his book was not on the tiger, but on something else.
As to V. Mazak.
I never met him (he died well before his time), but I met a man he considered as a friend: Dr. P. van Bree (see pp. 217). In his experience, V. Mazak was very able, interested, accurate, productive and honest. Mazak admitted he had been misled by hunters. It no doubt resulted in loss of face. How many of his peers would compare in this department?
V. Mazak, as far as I know, never saw a wild tiger. In spite of that, he wrote a book that compared to books written by those who had firsthand experience in all respects. Outstanding for sure.
Another impressive aspect is that the Duisburg specimen was reported by Mazak having the upper canine teeth up to 9 cm from the gumline over the curve.
I assume the Duisburg specimen along with Sungari River giant can produce the canine teeth up to this magnitude, close to 8 cm in crown height from the gumline, and measured over 4 cm at the gumline base. They simply dwarfed the regular Amur canine teeth.
At 300 kg, their canine teeth can also surpass those of a 450 kg Pleistocene lion, since a 120 kg Sumatran tiger can get its canine teeth bigger than those of a 180 kg African lion.
02-08-2018, 12:15 PM( This post was last modified: 02-08-2018, 12:16 PM by Betty )
(02-08-2018, 09:54 AM)peter Wrote: BETTY
Thanks for the clarification. I assume the measurement was taken 'over curves'. I'll use the information for the table on Panthera tigris amoyensis. It was a male tiger of 192,5 kg. (424 pounds) shot in 1965. In which Province is Changde Hefu?
a - The Duisburg Zoo tiger
When I posted the table with information about the standing height of captive tigers in European zoos from V. Mazak's book 'Der Tiger', you asked for a bit more on the Duisburg Zoo tiger. This tiger is not in the table, but Mazak was informed about the size of this tiger by the director of the Duisburg Zoo Dr. W. Gewalt in a letter.
I decided to scan the page. It's about the paragraph in red directly below the table:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It's in German. Here's a translation of the sentence you're interested in:
" ... This animal (Mazak is referring to the male tiger 'Amur' from the Duisburg Zoo), born in the Rotterdam Zoo (in The Netherlands) in 1965 ..., stood 110 cm. at the shoulder at age 5,5 (sic!) (Zoo director Dr. W. Gewalt, in litt. 8.12.1970) ... ".
In the same sentence, Mazak added that his mother had been captured in the Ussuri regio. Both parents of his father had been captured in the same region as well. As the Duisburg Zoo tiger was born in 1965, it's very likely that his mother had been captured in the late fifties of the last century.
Here's one more photograph of this exceptional male. The other tiger, by the way, is an adult female:
*This image is copyright of its original author
b - The Sungari River tiger
In 1965, at age 5, the Duisburg Zoo tiger was 320 cm. in total length 'between pegs' and estimated at 280-300 kg.
I've read reports about wild male Amur tigers of similar size, but all of them were dismissed as 'unreliable' by a number of biologists going over all reports about a decade ago. One of the few records considered as 'reliable' was from Baikov. The 560-pound tiger he shot near the Korean border in 1911 still tops the official table. Here he is:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Most of the other records of Baikov, however, were dismissed.
The Jankowski's also hunted Amur tigers. In 1943, they and a Korean professional hunter shot a very large male tiger near the Sungari River in Manchuria. In one of his letters to V. Mazak, W.J. Jankowski, one of the sons of J.M. Jankowski, wrote that this male, at 11.6 in total length (most probably measured 'over curves'), was estimated at " ... not less than 300 kg. ... " ('Der Tiger', pp. 189). A few days before he was shot, the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear, of which they found a leg and the head.
Not so long ago, poster Warsaw (Carnivora Forum) said that a book written by one of the Jankowski's had been published. The Sungari River tiger was mentioned. According to Warsaw, the length mentioned by V. Mazak (11.6 'over curves') was the length of the skin. He added that he found nothing about the bear allegedly killed by the tiger.
Some posters informed me about the post of Warsaw and asked for my opinion. All I can say is that V. Mazak, regarding the Sungari River tiger, referred to J.M. Jankowski's letters. He also published a photograph of the tiger in his book:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Watch the part at the right bottom. It says: photograph taken by W.J. Jankowski. This is the same W.J. Jankowski who featured in Mazak's book. The reason he featured? He and V. Mazak corresponded. Mazak, that is to say, got letters from W.J. Jankowski. Not one letter, but letters. Watch the s at the end of letter.
Mazak was much impressed by the information provided by W.J. Jankowski. On page 185, he wrote he considered him as an authority on Amur tigers. At page 186, Mazak said that W.J. Jankowski, more than once, wrote that the Sungari River tiger was the largest Amur tiger he, his brothers and his father, ever saw. On page 189, quoting from the same letter of W.J. Jankowski of May 8, 1970, Mazak added that they had to cut the tiger in 9 pieces to get him out of the forest. As each of the 9 men carried a piece of 30-40 kg., W.J. Jankowski thought the tiger was not less than 300 kg. The additional information about the very large male brown bear killed by the tiger is in the same letter.
Many, many years after the event, according to Warsaw, one of the Jankowski's apparently published a book with a bit of information about the Sungari River tiger. The tiger was shot in July 1943. W.J. Jankowski wrote V. Mazak in 1970. And some years ago he apparently published a book, which was immediately used to disqualify the information provided by V. Mazak. And now they want my opinion. Right.
Here it is.
I never met V. Mazak (he died well before his time), but I met a man he considered as a friend: Dr. P. van Bree (see pp. 217). Based on what he told me, it's clear he liked V. Mazak a lot. That should tell you something, as he had a different opinion about many others. In his experience, V. Mazak was productive and able in all departments. To him, there was no question that V. Mazak was honest and accurate. When he made a mistake, he admitted he did. In public. In the third edition of his book, on page 183, he wrote he had been misled by a few hunters about the size of Amur tigers.
Did Dr. P. van Bree see the letters of W.J. Jankowski? Yes. Did he see the photograph in this post? Yes. Is the addition on the photograph (photograph W.J. Jankowski) true? Yes. Dr. P. van Bree saw the photograph. Did Mazak have contacts in the former Sovjet-Union? Yes. Did he speak Russian? Yes. Was W.J. Jankowski there when the Sungari River tiger was shot in 1943? Yes. Was he the one who took the photograph? Yes. Was he one of those who carried a piece of the tiger out of the forest? Yes. Was he the one who corresponded with V. Mazak? Yes. Was he the one who informed Mzak about the details? Yes. Did he add the tiger had killed a eaten a very large male brown bear a few days before he was shot? Yes. Was the Sungari River tiger exceptional? Most definitely. Did he compare to the Duisburg Zoo tiger? Yes. If anything, the Sungari River tiger is a bit more robust. Watch the skull in particular.
So what about the book published by one of the Jankowski's some years ago?
I never saw it. Aa far as I know, it wasn't translated.
The tiger was shot in July 1943, when W.J. Jankowski still was a young man. In 1970, 27 years later, he informed V. Mazak about the tiger. Based on the information in Mazak's book, he had not forgotten about the tiger. In his letters, he more than once underlined that the Sungari River tiger was one of a kind. He also remembered a lot of details. Almost 70 years after the event, he published a book. According to Warsaw, not the tiger, but the skin was measured. There was no information about a bear he allegedly killed.
What to say? W.J. Jankowski was an old man when his book was published. Maybe he forgot about a few things. Maybe he sent everything he had about the tiger to V. Mazak in 1970. Maybe the focus was on something else in the book he published. I don't know.
I do know that V. Mazak was respected by many. More than anything else, V. Mazak's book made a lasting impression. After I read it a number of times, I acted. I measured lions, tigers and skulls. I talked to people who know a lot more than I do. I read what was available. I know V. Mazak mixed weights of captive and wild Amur tigers. I also know he was a bit tentative at times. Finally, it's clear he was guided by fascination. In the end, however, the conclusion is that he was right in nearly all departments.
Books written by those who have firsthand experience top my list. As far as I know, V. Mazak never saw a wild tiger. In spite of that, he wrote a book that compares in all respects. Remarkable.
Changde Hefu is located in Changde city of Hunan Province.
I do not have much information about this, I'm not an expert, just a fan. On the other hand, I do not think that amur tigers in Czech Republic are larger than elsewhere. For example, I saw tigers from the Nuremberg Zoo and they were comparable to the average tigers in the Czech Republic (around 210-220 kg). I saw a tiger at the Budapest Zoo and he was above average.
There is also the fact that a number of amur tigers who are in the Czech Republic have been brought to this country from elsewhere. On the other hand, a number of tigers born in the Czech Republic were exported to other countries. Of course, these processes are coordinated at international level.
For example, huge tiger Igor (240 kg at the age of 7) was brought to the Czech Republic from France. Huge tigress Altaica (115 kg at 1,5 yo) came from Sweden. Huge tiger Mauglis (246 kg at 13) came from Latvia, his partner Tsamara came from Canada, etc. Of course, in the Czech Republic there is a number of are descendants of those tigers (and others), but their origin lies abroad.
As for the Prague Zoo, they raised over 50 tigers, with their first tiger coming from Germany (during WWII). In addition, tigers from Soviet Union and other caountries came to this zoo.
Zoo Dvur Kralove produced quite a lot of tigers, rather above average, Id say. As far as I know, ancestry of those tigers lies in Soviet Union, resp. Russia...but Im not sure and Id say, that those tigers were paired with tigers who came from other countries.
02-09-2018, 06:43 AM( This post was last modified: 02-09-2018, 06:55 AM by peter )
PANTHERA TIGRIS AMOYENSIS - O
1 - Distribution in China
The map below shows the distribution of tigers in China. Found it in an article of I. Ren et al. in Quarternary International 355 (2015), pp. 145-152. The map is from a recent study on the distribution of tigers in China.
Most red dots, as you can see, are in the southeastern part of China. The map also has dots in the northwest (Panthera tigris amoyensis or Panthera tigris virgata), the southwest (Panthera tigris tigris or Panthera tigris corbetti) and the south (Panthera tigris amoyensis or Panthera tigris corbetti).
Tigers were also present west and northeast of Beijing. There is a clear gap between Beijing (Panthera tigris amoyensis) and Manchuria and Russia (Panthera tigris altaica):
*This image is copyright of its original author
The main reason for the gap between Beijing and Manchuria is the Chinese Wall:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Using the gaps in the Chinese Wall north and northwest of Beijing, tigers in northern China might have reached the southern part of Mongolia every now and then, but it seems they never reached Manchuria. This means that there was no gene flow between Panthera tigris amoyensis and Panthera tigris altaica.
I wonder how tigers reached the northwest of China, as large regions in central, western and northwestern China are very elevated:
*This image is copyright of its original author
If the three maps are combined, it's clear that tigers, although they prefer flatter and more forested regions, are able to survive and breed in elevated and quite barren regions. If we add the information of Marco Polo on tigers just east of Tibet (13th century) and recent information on Bhutan tigers seen (and breeding) at altitudes exceeding 12 000 feet at times, questions pop up. I was in particular thinking about the assumption regarding tigers not being able to cross the Himalayas.
2 - table with information on the size of 3 tiger subspecies in China
The table below was posted at another forum (AVA) some years ago by a Chinese poster (KTKC). It has information on Panthera tigris altaica (purple, n=10), Panthera tigris amoyensis (green, n=3) and Panthera tigris corbetti (orange, n=1). Of the 14 tigers, 5 (no. 05, 09, 10, 12 and 13) could have been immature. I'm not sure about the Indochinese tigress, but I think she was immature as well. The reason is the very limited difference between the greatest skull length and the condylobasal length (21,00 mm. only).
As 5 of the Amur tigers seem immature, it's likely that they were captive. I'm not sure about the other Amur tigers. The 3 Chinese tigers, however, were wild adult male tigers. Tiger no. 01, if I remember correctly, was shot in the sixties of the last century in the northwest of China. The two others were shot in central and southern China. I have no information about the Indochinese tigress.
The first tiger, at 290 cm. in total length (most probably measured 'between pegs') and 190 kg., was as large as an average adult wild male Amur tiger. Two of the male Amur tigers have a longer skull, but his skull is the widest of all (262,50 mm.).
Betty. Would you be able to find the source of the table?
*This image is copyright of its original author
3 - A heavy Amoy tiger
Based on what I have, I'd say that Panthera tigris amoyensis showed quite a bit of regional variation. Tigers in the central part of China were a bit smaller than Indochinese tigers, but there are many reports about male tigers exceeding 400 pounds in the western part of Hunan. Tigers in Shaanxi Province, north of Hunan, also seemed quite large.
Tigers in northern and northwestern China could have been large animals, not smaller than a typical representative of Panthera tigris virgata. Marco Polo wrote that 'the striped lions' used for hunting in northern China (close to Beijing) were larger than those in Babylon. They were also used to hunt bears. Tigers in the eastern part of central China could have been somewat smaller.
In the southeastern part of China, they were longer but less robust. The information I have, however, suggests ther were plenty of exceptions. This report the New York Herald from May 25, 1889, was posted at another forum (AVA) some years ago.
The tiger shot in a cave was heavy and measured 270,51 cm. in a straight line (all tigers shot in southeastern China were measured 'between pegs' as a rule). Mr. Leyburn, who provided Mr. Inverarity with information about the size of Amoy tigers (see post 1,450), is mentioned more than once:
one more thing, you wrote "When you see Amur tigers of that size all the time, it no doubt will have an effect. For you, it's clear that captive Amur tigers are the largest big cats by a margin"
Its not like that, as I wrote, white begal tigers are of similar size. Well, I have seen just 2 white bengals...one was 220 kg weighteed (pure muscle!), the other one was over 250 kg (250 kg weighted at the age of 3), I think that his prime weight is going to touch 300 kg mark.
Difference: amur tigers are definitely longer and with more slim bodies. On the other hand, there are amur tigers who are bear like creatures - overall very robust animals.
When it comes to comparison between amur tigers and lions, Id say, that amurs are obviously bigger, but huge lions are comparable to average amurs. Another difference is that amurs are longer, but lions have more robust bodies. On the other hand amurs have obviously stronger legs.
one more thing, you wrote "When you see Amur tigers of that size all the time, it no doubt will have an effect. For you, it's clear that captive Amur tigers are the largest big cats by a margin"
Its not like that, as I wrote, white begal tigers are of similar size. Well, I have seen just 2 white bengals...one was 220 kg weighteed (pure muscle!), the other one was over 250 kg (250 kg weighted at the age of 3), I think that his prime weight is going to touch 300 kg mark.
Difference: amur tigers are definitely longer and with more slim bodies. On the other hand, there are amur tigers who are bear like creatures - overall very robust animals.
When it comes to comparison between amur tigers and lions, Id say, that amurs are obviously bigger, but huge lions are comparable to average amurs. Another difference is that amurs are longer, but lions have more robust bodies. On the other hand amurs have obviously stronger legs.
It seems we roughly agree on the essentials of captive big cats. Amur tigers are the largest captive big cats. Although some are very robust, most males in European zoos range between 200-240 kg. Based on what I have, I'd say that the historic average of wild male Amur tigers (215-220 kg. or 474-485 pounds) could be about right for an average captive male Amur tiger. If Miquelle is right about wild males (about 430 pounds), the difference between captive and wild males is about 50 pounds.
Captive male lions could be 380-420 pounds if from Africa. The Indians seldom exceed 380 in captivity. For their length, lions are quite robust, especially in the chest and neck. If we add the relatively large skull, an average male roughly compares to an average captive Indian male (referring to weights from Indian zoos). Most captive tigers, as you said, are more muscular in the limbs. The front limbs in particular often seem a bit oversized. Tigers also have more flexible spines.
White lions and tigers usually are larger and heavier. I saw a male white lion in a Dutch zoo some years ago. Cost them a small fortune, but he always drew a crowd and was as large as they come (about 600 pounds). The other male, born and bred in the same facility in South Africa, almost compared. The male white tiger in the same zoo lacked about 50 pounds, but he was very robust as well.
In captivity, very large male lions can get to 600-620 pounds. At that weight, they are not obese. Very large male tigers are a bit heavier (up to 700 pounds), but they have different proportions. The difference between both cats is that tigers, in spite of lower numbers, do it more often.
Talking about proportions, The best in this department are Sumatran and Indochinese tigers. In my eyes, they are the largest true cats. Tigers and lions of large subspecies seem different animals. Although cats as well, they're not quite as able as their smaller relatives. Most of the trainers I interviewed considered leopards the most 'catlike' big cats. The things I saw during training were remarkable.
There were many animals were in Northeastern Asia until 1900. The Siberian tigers in Manchuria were probably robust. Some of old photos of the Manchurian wapiti, boar, and other large herbivorous mammals were large animals. Not just the Manchurian tiger, other Siberian tigers in East Russia or East Siberia were probably had been robust animal since many large mammals like moose and elk are in these habitats. The Siberian tigers were widespread entire Northeastern Asia. Some tigers were even discovered far as Yakutia and other parts of the Siberia.
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
