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)
|
The Korean Tiger (Panthera tigris coreensis)
These are extremely rare photos from North Korea. The Siberian tiger survived in Korea until the 2000s. Wagalbong Korean tiger The Korean tiger is the largest and most powerful animal of Korea. The Wagalbong Korean tiger is protecting by North Korea after it was listed as natural monument. Their walking distance is 80~90 km per day and 300~400 km in winter. The Wagalbong Korean tiger preys are roe deer, musk deer, boar, hare, badger, raccoon dog, fox, marten, otter, domestic dog, and dhole. They also take grey wolf and bear as well. The Korean tiger is the rarest animal in the world and it is listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List. Korean tiger is one of the three tiger habitats in North Korea. The Chuaesan Korean tiger was listed as natural monument 205 by the North Korean government in. It is the largest and rarest animal in Korea. It is mainly inhibited in steep mountain area. It is listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species because the global population is on the edge of extinction. Does anyone believe some tiger traveled far as the Belarus? There are a few records of tiger in Ukraine and Russia. 
what a majestic animal! I love how different that male looks compared to his Russian cousins. I added a rating for you. tfs
@parvez are you able to find photos from this region? (02-12-2018, 05:07 PM)Roflcopters Wrote: what a majestic animal! I love how different that male looks compared to his Russian cousins. I added a rating for you. tfs No @Roflcopters i shall try and possibly get back to you in a few days. My fantasy was largest tigers, and yes that includes siberian too.
Here is an interesting article I found regarding korean tigers,
Subspecific Status of the Korean Tiger Inferred by Ancient DNA Analysis ABSTRACT The tiger population that once inhabited the Korean peninsula was initially considered a unique subspecies (Panthera tigris coreensis), distinct from the Amur tiger of the Russian Far East (P. t. altaica). However, in the following decades, the population of P. t. coreensis was classified as P. t. altaica and hence forth the two populations have been considered the same subspecies. From an ecological point of view, the classification of the Korean tiger population as P. t. altaica is a plausible conclusion. Historically, there were no major dispersal barriers between the Korean peninsula and the habitat of Amur tigers in Far Eastern Russia and northeastern China that might prevent gene flow, especially for a large carnivore with long-distance dispersal abilities. However, there has yet to be a genetic study to confirm the subspecific status of the Korean tiger. Bone samples from four tigers originally caught in the Korean peninsula were collected from two museums in Japan and the United States. Eight mitochondrial gene fragments were sequenced and compared to previously published tiger subspecies’ mtDNA sequences to assess the phylogenetic relationship of the Korean tiger. Three individuals shared an identical haplotype with the Amur tigers. One specimen grouped with Malayan tigers, perhaps due to misidentification or mislabeling of the sample. Our results support the conclusion that the Korean tiger should be classified as P. t. altaica, which has important implications for the conservation and reintroduction of Korean tigers. RESULTS DNA was successfully recovered from bone powders of tigers that were collected in Korea around 100 year ago. Five segments (ND2, COI, ND5, ND6, and Cyt b) of mitochondrial DNA were amplified and sequenced from all samples using eight primer sets to yield a total of 1,174 base pairs including 22 subspecies diagnostic variable sites (Table 2) (Luo et al., 2004). Analysis of the sequences revealed two haplotypes from the four individuals in this study. When compared to previously published sequences, one haplotype shared by three individuals (KOR1 from NMNS; KOR2 and KOR3 from NMNH) was identical to the Amur subspecies, P. t. altaica (Table 2, Fig. 1). In contrast, the other haplotype (KOR4) matched a haplotype found in the Malayan tiger, P. t. jacksoni (Table 2, Fig. 1), which corresponded to COR6, COR7, and COR8 in Luo et al. (2004). The two haplotypes had five nucleotide differences. https://www.luo-lab.org/publications/Luo...ersity.pdf 
WARSAW
It didn't take you long to respond to the questions in post 1,447, but you didn't deliver. I'll try again. a - The issue In the third part of his book 'Der Tiger' (third edition, 1983), in 3.2 ('Der Größe der Tiger', pp. 178-196), V. Mazak says there's no question that the tiger is the largest cat. The question is how large: " ... Welche Größe können Tiger nun tatsächlich erreichen? ... " (pp. 178). In spite of the large number of measurements and weights in books, it wasn't easy to get to an answer: " ... Es ist möglich, zahlreiche Angaben über Gewicht und Größe aus der Literatur zu erhalten, die sich mit der Jagd des Tigers sowohl im nordlichen wie südlichen teil seines Verbreitungsgebietes beschäftigt. Leider weiß man nie ob diese Daten als authentisch betrachtet werden können oder nicht. Das muß festgestellt werden, und das gleiche trifft auch für Rowlands Ward's berühmte 'Records of Big Game' ... zu, besonders für die älteren der zusammengetragenen Daten des in anderer Hinsichts so nützlichen Werkes. Die 'Jagd' nach des besten und größten Trophäe hat die Glaubwürdigkeit vieler Sportjäger mit Sicherheit beträchtlich beeinflußt. Des weiteren haben sie die getötenen Großkatzen auf unterschiedlichen Weise vermessen. Die aus der Literatur, die sich mit der Sportjagd beschäftigt, am besten bekannten zwei Methoden sind entweder die Länge des Tieres 'over curves' zu nehmen, d.h. allen Körperkrümmungen des ausgestreckt am Boden liegenden Tieres 'over curves' zu folgen, oder 'between pegs', d.h. die gerade Entfernung von der Nasen- bis zur Schwanzspitze des frei am Boden liegenden toten Tieres. Der erstere Methode ergibt naturgemäß höhere Werte, wogegen die letztere tatsächlich mit der Gesamtlänge eines Tieres identisch ist, wie sie gewöhnlich von einem Zoölogen verstanden wird. Vom zoologischen Standpunkt aus sind schließlich die Zentimeter, die eine Trophäe zur Rekordtrophäe machen, nicht so wichtig. Es ist uns eher daran gelegen, daß wir uns eine Gesamtvorstellung über die Durchschnittsgröße machen, die eine Art in ihren Unterarten errecht. In diesem Buch werden Daten über die Tigergröße weder aus dem reinen Sportjägerschrifttum noch aus den 'Records of Big Game zitiert ... " (pp. 178). To keep it short. Mazak says the 'hunt' for trophees has effected the credibility of many hunters. This means it is difficult to get to an opinion on records of hunters. In order to get to an assessment, Mazak distinguishes between measurements taken 'over curves' and measurements taken 'between pegs'. As zoologists measure big cats 'between pegs', Mazak decided to use measurements taken in this way only. b - On W.J. Jankowski and the brown bear After discussing the standing height of tigers in European zoos, Mazak turns to the size of Amur tigers. He says he doubts they can reach the dimensions described by Baikov and Barclay and regrets he used the data they published. After discussing the length of two males from the Prague Zoo, he turns to W.J. Jankowski: " ... Uber eine große persönliche Erfahrung mit dem Ussuritiger, die ich bedeutend höher einschätze als die der verstorbenen Bajkov, verfügt W.J. Jankowski, ein Sohn des bekannten Naturforschers J.M. Jankowski, der mir viele bedeutende Daten über die nördliche Tiger mitteilte. In einem seiner Briefe (datiert vom 8. Mai 1970) schreibt W.J. Jankowski, daß das größte Tigermännchen, welches jemals von ihm, seinen Brüdern oder seinem Vater geschossen wurde, ein riesiges Männchen war, das am 9. Juli 1943 von ihm, seinen Brüdern und einem koreanischen Berufsjäger namens Sin-En-Tschzhin im Becken des Oberlaufes der Sungari-Flusses in Heilongjiang (Nordostchina) erlegt wurde. Die Gesamtlänge des Tieren, gemessen 'über curves', betrug 11 engl. ft. 6 ins., d.h. 350,7 cm. Somit würde der Tiger etwa eine Länge von 330-335 cm. 'between pegs' gehabt haben und Jankowski betonte mehrere Male in seinen Briefen, das dies ein außergewöhnlich größes Tier war, ein wahrhafter Gigant unter den Ussuritigern ... (pp. 185-186). Later, Mazak again referred to W.J. Jankowski and the giant tiger he, his brothers and the Korean professional hunter shot in 1943: " ... Was den sehr großen Tiger betrifft, den W.J. Jankowski und sein Team 1943 im becken des Oberlaufes des Sungari schossen, so ist das genaue Gewicht nicht bekann. Jankowski schätzte es aber glaubwärdig mit etwa 300 kg. Er schreibt (in litt. 8.5.1970): " ... Der Tiger ... was so groß, das einer von uns Hilfe holen mußte, damit wir das Tier aus dem Wald schaffen konnten. Als die Helfer kamen, waren wir insgesamt neun strake Männer. Wir schnitten den Körper des toten Tigers in Stücke und jeder von uns trug eine Ladung von etwa 30-40 kg., so das ich nicht zögere zu sagen, daß das Gewicht des Tigers sicher nicht weniger als etwa 300 kg. betrug ... " (pp. 189). Mazak concluded the information on the giant tiger with a remark about the bear he had killed and eaten: " ... Um die Angaben über diesen riesigen Tiger zu vervollständigen, sollte ich vielleicht erwähnen, daß Jankowski (l.c.) hinzufügt, daß der Tiger einige Tagen vor dem Abschuß ein sehr großes Braunbär-Männchen getötet und gefressen hatte, von dem nur eine Pfote und der Kopf übrigblieben, die von Jankowski gefunden worden ... " (pp. 189). In order to get it straight: Mazak said that Jankowski, in his letter, added that the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head remained, which were found by Jankowski. From what he wrote, it's clear he respects W.J. Jankowski a lot. c - On your attempt to discredit a renowned zoologist You are a member of Carnivora Forum. In that forum, you said you found a book published by the same man who corresponded with V. Mazak: W.J. Jankowski. In your post on Carnivora Forum a few days ago, you wrote the book was published in 1993. In the book, W.J. Jankowski wrote about the very large tiger shot by him, his brothers and the Korean hunter in 1943. According to W.J. Jankowski, the skin of the tiger, and not the tiger, measured 11.6. The tiger had eaten a bear, but he didn't say if the tiger had fought and killed the bear. When a poster responded to your post about the book of W.J. Jankowski, you said Jankowski is the primary source. V. Mazak's book is a secondary source. This means that W.J. Jankowski's remarks on the tiger are final. This means you, indirectly, said that V. Mazak lied regarding the length of the tiger and the bear eaten by the tiger. d - On your response to my suggestions to explain the difference of opinion on the length of the tiger and the brown bear eaten by the tiger When I was informed about your post on Jankowski's book, I reread your posts at Carnivora. When other posters asked me about the difference of opinion between Jankowski and Mazak on the length of the tiger and the bear, I said it was difficult to understand. Some days ago, in another post on V. Mazak, knowing you would read it and respond, I offered four explanations. As expected, you quickly responded. The problem is you, again, didn't respond in the most adequate way. When you accuse someone, you need to deliver proof. This means you first need to scan the title page of Jankowski's book and the other pages that matter first. When you post the scans, you add a translation. In this way, you offer those interested the opportunity to get to an opinion. You didn't post the scans, but instead posted a lengthy part of a very long post of WaveRiders. In the quote, he disqualified this forum in general and one of the co-owners in particular. After a number of pages loaded with fury, you added he was right. After finishing the discrediting part, you said that the four explanations I offered on the difference of opinion between Mazak and Jankowski were based on a lack of information, twists and assumptions. e - On the answers you provided In the third edition of his book 'Der Tiger', V. Mazak said the tiger shot in 1943 was 11.6 'over curves'. He also said that the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear a few days before he was shot by Jankowski's team (see -b-). W.J. Jankowski, however, said that the skin of the tiger, an not the tiger, was 11.6. He also said the tiger had eaten a bear. He didn't say the tiger had killed the bear. How explain? You said Jankowski's book is the primary source, meaning Mazak lied. As simple as that. I think the difference of opinion could have been a result of something else. Here's a summary of your answer. e1 - I said W.J. Jankowski was a young man when the tiger was shot. His book was published many years after the event, when he was an old man. You said W.J. Jankowski was born in 1911. This means he was 32 when the tiger was shot in 1943 and 82 when his book was published. You went for a lack of accuracy in my proposal in order to discredit me, but 32 is young, whereas 82 is old. Your attempt to discredit me backfired, that is. e2 - You said Jankowski's book is the primary source. True. But Mazak referred to Jankowski's letters all the time. Jankowski also sent him a photograph. The photograph was taken by Jankowski himself, not someone else. This proves they corresponded. It is important to add that Mazak, regarding the length, the weight and the bear, referred to Jankowski's letter of 8.5.1970. Mazak, a zoologist who had published before, knew the rules of the game. If you quote someone, you have to be accurate. He also knew that W.J. Jankowski would get a lot of attention. More than enough reason for him to ask for permission to quote from his letters and to publish the photograph, one would think. If Jankowski would have disagreed, he would have reacted. e3 - Jankowski book is the primary source, provided it's clear, accurate and detailed on the length of the tiger and the bear he ate. Let's address the length first. Jankowski said the skin of the tiger, and not the tiger, was measured. But in his letter to Mazak of 8.5.1970, he wrote that the tiger was cut in pieces in order to get it out of the forest. You can't cut a tiger to pieces and than measure it. He contradicted himself, that is. As for the bear. Jankowski did say the tiger had eaten a bear, but didn't say anything about a struggle. Mazak, however, quoted from Jankowski's letter of 8.5.1970. In that letter, Jankowski wrote the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head remained. Did Jankowski decide to skip the details on the tiger and the bear in the book because the focus was on something else, or did he again contradict himself? e4 - The only way to get to an answer is to contact the man who got Mazak's files, C.P. Groves. Based on what I read and heard from a man who considered him an able zoologist and a friend (Dr. P. van Bree), I have no questions. He could have added the letter of Jankowski of 8.5.1970 in the Appendix, but decided against it. Maybe Jankowski didn't want the letter published. As to the 'very large bear' killed by the tiger. I know there is no solid evidence of male brown bears killed by tigers, but that doesn't mean it never happens. In a recent article (Kerley and Miquelle were involved), it was stated that biologists could have been wrong on tigers and bears in Russia. Bears are no doubt dangerous, but tigers apparently do not hesitate to attack bears and not all of them are small. If a tiger of exceptional size would engage a bear of similar size, nothing can be excluded. All this to say that I do not intend to contact a man who most probably wants to stay clear of forums, posters and problems. If you have a different opinion, contact Groves. f - To conclude There are not that many people interested in animals walking the edge, like large predators. Some of those interested joined forums in which they feature. Although most of them share a common interest, they seldom cooperate. Most energy is invested in animosity, fueds and all the rest of it. One reason is preference, but not being able to deal with criticism is as important, if not more so. It's a fact that humans and mistakes are good friends. If a mistake is made, it has to be corrected. Posters addressed by others often seem unable to deal with criticism. Example. All zoologists and biologists I know measure big cats in a straight line and not 'over curves'. That's why I thought that wild tigers were measured in a straight line as well. Until you proved me wrong. I was as surprised as the biologists I informed, but accepted that reality is different from textbook. You than posted about a well-known biologist who turned the world upside down on straight line and curve measurements. You supported him. I responded and the result was animosity. For what reason, Warsaw? He was wrong. Period. A few years ago, I was in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde in Stuttgart to measure skulls. Some of the skulls had labels with information about the size of the owner. As I didn't know in what way they had been measured, I asked Dr. Mörike about the method that had been used. She was a bit irritated, as biologists measure big cats in a straight line as a rule. When I told her that most biologists measure wild big cats 'over curves' today, she didn't believe me. The following day, after she had read a number of articles, she did. But she was flabberghasted. Returning to Mazak and Jankowski. They seem to disagree on the length of the tiger and the bear. Mazak quoted Jankowski every time he made a remark about the tiger. Could he have twisted information, as you suggested? Mazak was misled once before and knew about the consequences. It's very unlikely he would have fallen into a similar trap. Just an opinion, of course. That leaves Jankowski's book. I didn't read it, but it was published when he was 82. Jankowski's book isn't about tigers only. Maybe this is the reason he decided against details. It's also possible his memory was affected by age to a degree. Maybe he sent most of what he had to Mazak. I don't know. I do know one should be very sure before accusing a zoologist who wrote a great book. 
I just don't think there is much to the 1943 Sungari River event as told by Jankowski, except for the immense size of the tiger. A tiger found feeding on a carcass is circumstantial evidence at best; nothing solid. I'm not saying that a big male tiger cannot and does not occasionally kill a mature grizzly. Having been living within the same environment for tens of thousands of years, I'm sure that there has been many such events. After all, a tiger is a natural-born assassin and is equipped with the tools of the trade. But as you have said yourself Peter, a bear is no joke.
As for the tigress killing the 170 kg ( 375 pounds ) grizzly, here again not a big story. Such a bear is probably either an adult she-bear or a fat juvenile male. The average Amur tigress is about 137.5 kg ( 303 pounds ). The bear is heavier but the tigress I would guess was probably at least a foot ( 30.5 cm ) longer in body length. There is no doubt that more bears are killed by tigers than tigers by bears. Tigers are pure-predator. Bears are omnivores. (02-13-2018, 06:24 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I just don't think there is much to the 1943 Sungari River event as told by Jankowski, except for the immense size of the tiger. A tiger found feeding on a carcass is circumstantial evidence at best; nothing solid. I'm not saying that a big male tiger cannot and does not occasionally kill a mature grizzly. Having been living within the same environment for tens of thousands of years, I'm sure that there has been many such events. After all, a tiger is a natural-born assassin and is equipped with the tools of the trade. But as you have said yourself Peter, a bear is no joke. In his letter of 8.5.1970 to V. Mazak, Jankowski said the Sungari river tiger was the largest he and his brothers had ever seen. The tiger was 11.6 'over curves'. Jankowski sent a photograph he took himself. In the same letter, Jankowski said the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear, of which he found a leg and the head. In his book, Mazak referred to the letter more than once. Jankowski also wrote a book. The tiger was mentioned and so was the bear. Jankowski said the skin of the tiger, not the tiger, was 11.6. Different from what Mazak wrote. What to make of that? Well, in his letter of 8.5.1970, Jankowski wrote the hunters had to get help to move the tiger out of the forest. The tiger was cut up. As each of the nine men carried a piece of 30-40 kg., Jankowski thought the tiger was not less than 300 kg. (662 pounds). In his book, Jankowski apparently wrote the length of the skin was 11.6. But how measure a skin of a tiger that was cut to pieces not long after he was shot? The addition on the bear in the same letter was from Jankowski, not Mazak. Every time Mazak talked about the Sungari river tiger, he referred to Jankowski's letter. In the letter, Jankowski wrote that the tiger had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear. What to make of the difference of opinion on the length of the tiger and the bear? Warsaw said Jankowski's book is the primary source, meaning his word is vital. Also, indirectly, meaning that Mazak lied on the length of the tiger and the bear. There's another possibility. Mazak's book sold well in Europe, meaning Jankowski's letter and the photograph he added would get a lot of attention. As Mazak quoted from the letter and also published a unique photograph taken by Jankowski, he needed permission of Jankowski. Apparently, he got it. It's also very likely he sent Jankowski a copy of his book before it was published. This means that Jankowski must have agreed with the part Mazak wrote about him. Jankowski knew about the book, he knew about the letter he wrote and he knew about the photograph he sent. As the book was published, Jankowski must have agreed in all departments. Mazak, with permission of Jankowski, was the first to publish about the Sungari river tiger and the details provided by Jankowski in his letter of 8.5.1970 to Mazak. This means that his book, and not the book of Jankowski, can be regarded as the primary souce. And what about Jankowski's book? I didn't read it, but it was published half a century after the event, when Jankowski was 82. But the dispute isn't about the length of the tiger, the bear, Jankowski and Mazak, Brotherbear. It's about deliberate misinformation and disqualifying a well-trained and very dedicated man with a reputation after his death. It's about the ease used to eliminate a problem and it's about legal affairs. In my two posts, arguments and logic prevail, but anyone able to read knows there's more to it. I contacted people in the know.
Perhaps Jankowski, being a veteran hunter, could read the tracks on the ground, wounds on the tiger, and other signs of a struggle which, with him knowing that this sort of thing happens in the wilderness, felt it unnecessary to write. Perhaps in his mind, there was no reason to even suspect that this spactacular battle of the beasts would ever be questioned. *Just a possibility.
Also, I see no reason whatsoever of questioning the size of this tiger.  (02-14-2018, 09:21 PM)parvez Wrote: Here is a video of Korean tiger crossing the river from North Korea to China, That footage was years ago, and it was probably one of few residual Korean Amur tigers that tried to migrate to China or Russia. BTW, maybe @
TIGERS IN KOREA
About 15-20 years ago, I read a report about tigers in North Korea. It's the only report I read about tigers in that country. Based on the report, I assumed they lived in the northern part, but there have been rumours about tigers living close to the border with South Korea for quite some time. The only, indirect, confirmation I found was this video. Go to 02:10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FA5GRyMwHE 
Korean tiger painted by a European sometime in the 19th Century.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Lost to Japanese military officials...  *This image is copyright of its original author ..& local Korean professional hunter.  *This image is copyright of its original author Pyongyang Zoo tiger (not sure how pure).  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
WARSAW II
Thanks for the response. Although you changed animosity for new information, which resulted in extra points, I still didn't see any scans. As I'm not able to read the part on the Sungari river tiger completely, it's impossible to get to an opinion. Assuming you are unable to scan, I'll ask one of our members to find the book and scan the pages that matter. I'll also ask them to translate the pages for those unable to use the translator. The link you posted, by the way, didn't work. Same for the links to your posts in Carnivora. Could have been a result of the recent changes made in Carnivora. Anyhow. In your post, you added new information. I'm referring to the weight and the skull of the tiger. You also repeated that Jankowski didn't write anything about a struggle between the tiger and the bear he consumed. In this post, I'll address some of the points you raised. g - The length of the skin of the Sungari river tiger In his book 'Der Tiger' (third edition, 1983), V. Mazak, referring to the letter of W.J. Jankowski of 8.5.1970, wrote the tiger was 11.6 in total length measured 'over curves'. In his book published in 1993, W.J. Jankowski apparently wrote the skin of the tiger, and not the tiger, was 11.6. In your post, you added the tiger was skinned before he was cut to pieces. Plausible, but unlikely for a number of reasons. g1 - I talked to people who hunted tigers for many years. They really knew about tigers. Although some of them had a skin or a skull, they dind't really care about these things. They cared about something else. Some had photographs and notes, but most had memories. All of them were accurate observers, not crappers. Meaning they didn't measure skins, but tigers. Also meaning they were accurate. One thing they really disliked was bragging. The ones I saw all measured tigers 'over curves'. The reason is it is very difficult to transport a large animal like a tiger to a completely flat piece of ground. Takes too much time and too many assistents. The Jankowskis were true hunters who knew about Amur tigers. If W.J. Jankowski said the Sungari river tiger was one of a kind, his word is good enough for me. It could be he took the skin and the skull because of the immense size of the tiger and it could be he measured the skin, but it's unlikely he would have used that measurement to describe the size of the tiger. A photograph would be much more convincing. And that's what he did. g2 - An average adult male Amur tiger today is 294 cm. (about 9.8) in total length measured 'over curves'. This means the skin, depending on the method used, could range between 10.6-12.0, maybe a bit more. If the skin of the Sungari River tiger really was 11.6, the tiger most probably was average in length. In his letters to V. Mazak, however, W.J. Jankowski wrote the tiger was something special. Based on the weight, he was. It could be that a male Amur tiger 50-70% heavier than an average male tiger is average in length, but it is unlikely. If we add the photograph, I would change that to very unlikely. This photograph below was posted by 'Betty'. The length of head and body was 300 cm. (9.10). Although it was stretched, it doesn't look like the skin of a snake. I can still see a tiger. Not very different from skins of other tigers I saw, but longer. The owner of the skin most probably was an Indochinese tiger (P. tigris corbetti). A large male might get to 9.10 in total length 'between pegs', but a tiger of that size in that region would be exceptional. The longest shot in Malaysia (Perak) was 9.8 in total length 'between pegs'. Tigers in Vietnam (Annam) could have been longer (the longest shot by W. Bazé was 11.1 in total length measured 'over curves' and 260 kg. or 575 pounds), but tigers in Vietnam are all but gone:  *This image is copyright of its original author The skin left in the photograph below, much larger than the other skins, was over 13 feet in length and very wide. The owner, shot in Assam between 1853-1869, was 10.1, most probably measured 'between pegs'. The other skins seem to range between 10.6 and 12.0:  *This image is copyright of its original author According to Miquelle, an average male Amur tiger is 430 pounds. In his letters to V. Mazak, W.J. Jankowski wrote the tiger was exceptional, not less than 300 kg. (662 pounds). In his book published in 1993, he apparently wrote the tiger was 350 kg. (772 pounds). The photograph published by V. Mazak doesn't show a mountain of fat, but a very robust tiger with a very large skull. In captive tigers, there's often no connection between size (length) and weight. In wild tigers, at the level of averages, there is. In India, longer tigers are heavier than shorter tigers. Same for wild Sumatran tigers. This means it's very likely that the Sungari river tiger was both long and robust. All in all, I'd say that the skin of the Sungari river tiger wasn't 11.6, but well over that mark. It was very likely longer than the skin of the Assam tiger above. That tiger was 10.1 in total length 'between pegs'. If the Sungari river tiger was 11.6 in total length measured 'over curves', he was at least 10.8 'between pegs', maybe even 10.10 or slightly over. Quite a bit longer than the Assam tiger with a skin of more than 13 feet. h - The tiger and the bear In his letter of 8.5.1970 to V. Mazak, W.J. Jankowski wrote that the Sungari river tiger has killed and eaten a very large male brown bear a few days before he was shot. In his book published in 1993, W.J. Jankowski confirmed that the tiger had eaten a brown bear. He found the head and a paw, but no signs of a struggle. You suggested there had been no struggle. Maybe the bear had died as a result of a disease, a fight or old age and maybe the tiger had found the bear. The question is who is right, Mazak or Jankowski. In your posts, you wrote that Jankowski's book is the primary source. True and not true. Mazak wrote he quoted from Jankowski's letter of 8.5.1970. The letter, therefore, is the primary source and it was written by W.J. Jankowski. Before the third edition of Mazak's book was published, Jankowski must have agreed with the content. V. Mazak's book was published in 1983. Jankowski's book was published in 1993. Mazak's book is about tigers only. In Jankowski's book, many animals feature. Could it be that Jankowski, for this reason, decided to refrain from details about the bear and the tiger? Could it be he forgot about the details as a result of age (he was 82 when the book was published)? So what is known about Amur tigers and bears? - A decade ago, biologists thought that only adult male tigers hunt bears. Based on what he saw in the snow, Goodrich concluded that these specialists usually had a hundred pounds or so on the bears they targeted. All bears that were attacked were killed. In the years that followed, however, I found many reports about tigresses also hunting bears and male tiger 'Boris', after he had been released, twice killed a bear near his kill. At least one of them was 3-4 years of age. Tiger Boris was 2-3 years of age. This to say that biologists had to refine their conclusion on tigers and bears. - In 2015, a study on food habits of Amur tigers was published. One conclusion was that tigers hunt bears more often than was assumed. In some seasons in some regions, bears almost topped the list. Another conclusion was that the bears hunted could have been larger (heavier) than was assumed. Biologists assumed that bears were too dangerous to hunt, but Miquelle said they could have been wrong. Another refinement. - Some Russian biologists reported about male brown bears killed by tigers in the past, but biologists today never found proof. My guess is they will. - According to Baikov, tigers attack bears of almost their own size. Let's assume he was right. In his day (a little over a century ago), Amur tigresses averaged 135-140 kg. (298-310 pounds), whereas male tigers averaged 460-480 pounds (208,66-217,73 kg.). I have no information about the weight of an average brown bear a century ago, but today females average 140-150 kg. (310-332 pounds), as opposed to 260-270 kg. (575-597 pounds) for males. Let's assume they were about similar a century ago. If we add the information of Goodrich (specialists have about 100 pounds on the bears they target), the conclusion is that Amur tigers hunted bears up to the size of adult females, maybe immature males. Today, Amur tigers show little individual variation. To date, exceptional individuals have not been seen. The heaviest males captured ranged between 200-210 kg. (442-462 pounds). A century ago, however, males averaged 460-480 pounds. A century ago, some individuals well exceeded that mark. Although all reports about tigers well exceeding 650 pounds were dismissed, the Sungari river tiger proves that some males were very large. If the Sungari river tiger hunted bears as well, chances are he would have been able to hunt bears up to the size of an average male. In some circumstances, he might have been able to hunt a heavier male. If the Tatibe river tigress was able to kill a heavier bear, a male tiger also should be capable of that feat. What I'm saying is that it can't be excluded that a very large male Amur tiger exceeding, say, 700 pounds, could have been able to hunt a male brown bear of near-similar size. A century ago, tigers of that size have been shot. There were there, that is. - Would a hunt have resulted in a struggle? Depends. The photograph of the Sungari river tiger shows he was shot in what must have been a dense forest with a lot of undergrowth. Jankowski found the remains of the bear in that forest. If the tiger had killed the bear, chances are it would have been an ambush. If the tiger had been experienced, he could have targeted the part just below the skull. If so, the grip would have resulted in instant death. There could have been a struggle, but that was a few days before the tiger was shot. Maybe the vegetation had recovered. It was, after all, mid summer. And maybe there had been no struggle. You read this thread and I assume you read many other threads. It's also clear you read articles and studies. You know about tigers, that is. This means you also know that tigers in southern India hunt gaurs. In northern India and Assam, some male tigers hunt rhinos and elephants. You most probably saw the video of a well-known male in southern India and the female gaur. The tiger got a good grip right away and killed her in minutes. There was no struggle. If a large tiger targets an agile and powerful animal like an adult male boar or a bear, chances are they would be a struggle. Tigers enter fights with dangerous animals at times, but that doesn't mean they always do. Tigers are ambush hunters. If an ambush succeeds, it would be over in seconds. - I assume you read the story about male tiger 'Uporny' some time ago. When still immature, he hunted the occasional dog near villages. Uporny was arrested and jailed. After rehabilitation, he was set free in a different region. After his release, he avoided anything related to humans. One day, in mid winter, his collar said something had happened. When they found him, they initially thought he had been killed by a bear. I got to a different conclusion. A few weeks later, they concluded he had been killed by another tiger, also 'quite large':  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's the full tekst (in Russian):  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Uporny was 4-5 years of age when he was killed close to his boar in winter. Amur tigers thrive in winter. My guess is that Uporny was at least 375 pounds, but he could have been average (430 pounds). A big male close to his prime, he was, but they didn't find signs of a struggle. This means he had been ambushed and killed in seconds. As his boar was still there when they found Uporny more or less intact, it wasn't about food. Could have been about illegal hunting, but Amur tigers mate in winter. Wolverine recently posted a short video in the thread 'Amur tigers'. It shows the place where they found Uporny. No struggle, no nothing. I'm not saying that a tiger can ambush an adult male brown bear and finish him in seconds, but it can't be excluded. If the tiger was exceptional in size, like the Sungari river tiger, chances are he would have been able to target an adult male brown bear. - Maybe Jankowski wrote the male bear was 'very large', because he had never seen a male bear killed by a tiger. I don't know, but I do know that there's no love lost between captive Amur tigers and captive brown bears. We also have to remember that tigers eat what they kill. I remember a report about a male tiger eating a large male bear killed by another bear, but tables in studies say tigers rarely eat carrion in normal conditions. - You could be right. Maybe the male bear died as a result of a disease or old age, but excluding a realistic option out of hand isn't going to help either. I'm not saying that adult male brown bears are in reach of adult male Amur tigers, but what do we really know? Based on what I read and saw myself (captive animals), I'd say that Kerley (anything is possible between tigers and bears) could be close.
Just red the passage where is written about the giant Sungari tiger, page 50:
https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=181911&p=50 "Мы повидали немало тигров на своем веку, но подобного не встречали никогда. Старый могучий самец предельных размеров. Вчетвером свободно рассевшись, как на диване, на широченной спине, мы благоговейно поглаживали чудесный мех на голове, боках и мощных колоннах-лапах; мех был летний, короткий, но отлично пролинявший, яркий и лоснящийся. На оранжевом фоне широкого лба, словно выведенный кистью искусного каллиграфа, красовался черный иероглиф «Ван» — князь, владыка. Седые усы поражали длиной и толщиной каждого отдельного волоса. Огромные, конической формы клыки вызывали невольный трепет… Освежеванного тигра выносили вдевятером. Мне досталась необезжиренная шкура, которая показалась свинцовой, на пути к палатке пришлось не раз отдыхать. Взвесить груз целиком не удалось, однако, по общему подсчету, он тянул не менее 350 килограммов.... Расстелив шкуру посреди чисто выметенного двора, японец скрупулезно измерил ее длину от носа до хвоста. Вышло одиннадцать с половиной футов — более чем три и три четверти метра!" shortly "We have seen a lot of tigers during our life but never something similar. Super powerfull male with gigantic dimentions. We, four guys seat on his back as on sofa.... 9 guys brought the dead tiger..... We didn't succeed to measure whole body, so part by part it measured at least 350 kg.... the Japaneese guy measured the skin from the nose to the tail in the yard. It was 11 and a half feet - more than 3 and 3/4 meters." Peter, if you can scan these 2 pages would be grate because I cant - page 49 and 50 from Jankovski book . Here is again the video with murdered tiger Uporni: Next to the tiger is visible a boar corps , but strangely the murderer had eaten the tiger flash and didn't touch the boar even the pork must be much more tasty... May be Peter or @Rishi could post (I still don't know how to post images) this wonderfull picture of Siberian tiger-brown bear battle of Russian painter Vadim Gorbatov, image no 6 from the bottom to the top: http://art-interer.blogspot.ca/2013/05/blog-post_15.html Thanks. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 98 Guest(s) |