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)
|
I am pretty sure these two Baikal were two different specimens, the huge one cannot be mistaken as the average one.
But unfortunately King is not here right now, thus we need to wait the confirmation from him later. 
Waveriders want to start a war, that is obvious based in his last posts. I said to him that if he wants it, he will lose, simple.
However, in the aim of the topic, I will not participate on it, because it is not logic to fight with a person that don't present anything, so, what we are going to discuss??? There is enough evidence that many old records, like the 705 lb tiger, are reliable. The long post of Wave.. (No. 414) about Smythies, shows no evidence, but only a lot of ideas based in nothing more than a "conspiration theory", which is simple ridiculous.  that participated in the document of 2005, this particular record is reliable, and although is not mentioned in some books, it is stated in others, also published by scientists. So, there is no point in argue in here. Some books have it, others don't, but that doesn't mean that is unreliable.<br />
<br />
Continuing with the topic, and ignoring the troll, I still will want to know the opinion of other posters about the plate No. 22 (maybe a silly question, but I will like to know your opinion, just that). That image remember me the colored picture of the Caspian tiger in the Russian Zoo:<br />
<br />
[img]http://i.imgur.com/UnYSFBP.jpg) *This image is copyright of its original author This looks also like a draw, but we know it is a photograph. What do you believe folks? The book says that there is a draw in plate 23, but what it say about plate 22? (02-24-2015, 11:27 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: I am pretty sure these two Baikal were two different specimens, the huge one cannot be mistaken as the average one.In fact, you are right, KingTheropod is the one that contacted the Zoo and only he can corroborate the email. However, the large tiger Baikal is too large to be the average sized one. Maybe, the one on the studbook is the smaller, while the large one was not included. Can you found the studbook about the Amur tigers? That will help in your quest.
Here is the studbook provided by Warsaw, and only few tiger specimens were on the list, so definitely not a complete one.
Only by coincidence, this average sized Baikal was transferred to the Assiniboine park zoo with the huge one at the same year.  *This image is copyright of its original author
ALL
Just to avoid a big misunderstanding when I wrote “Your allegation that because V. Mazak appears to have been biased therefore some modern zoologists are likely biased too and in the most stupid and amateur way (cheating on measurements) when and if they concentrate on a particular animal is very bizarre.” “The most stupid and amateur way” was referred to any modern zoologist if he cheats on measurements. I am VERY sorry if this was intended otherwise because I do no call anybody stupid, idiot, retard like many did among themselves in AVA. One of the reason because I stayed around in AVA the first time in the late Winter / Spring of 2004 only for some months (the best time despite a few people, no doubt) and the second time in January 2012 for only less then one month was because I was completely fed up and peaced off by the aggression some people showed against other people and their excessive fanaticism. My posts are generally a critics to other posts or consideration or analyses that do not need new data as yours are enough for my purpose. Could you explain me what I should have shown in post #411 and post #414 in this tread that I did not? Could you please explain what data I had to show to discuss the Nepal tiger food issue and length measurement method that I did not show? The page from Tamang thesis or from Karanth book that everybody knows about but that in this website is never shown? Could you please explain me what data I need to show in order to discuss the Ngorongoro lion weight ESTIMATE of Brown et al. (1991)? You want to see the correct equation?. Look by yourself. You want to have chest girth data from Serengeti and from Ngorongoro Crater lions? Look by yourself if you can. I NEVER said that I based something to data I have from Ngorongoro Crater lions. I discussed a published weight estimate, a chest girth range provided by Packer you know about (saying nothing if matches my info and data or not) and made my point. I discuss things that ARE published AND you know about. I based nothing of FUNDAMENTAL in my critics and analyses on UNpublished info/data and published info/data that NONE of you know about. One thing I can tell you for sure: based on your attitude, it is completely useless to show you published data that you do not know about and, what’s more, unpublished data. I would not show the latter ones in any case and I explained you why. Mine are not attacks saying as GuateGojira wrote “your post is laughable” or “You constantly insulted to all the posters” or “your own words discover your lie”, etc. etc. Mine are educated sometimes hard critics played against the constant music. So if one does not play the constant music that four out of four biased moderators play all the time and makes critics towards this approach and ambition to make science then he insults? Then he is a troll? Well Sanjay and Peter tell me this crystal clear and I will disappear instantly. You well know that I will not die at all, at most I will perhaps anticipate my 3rd disappearance. I will be happy to leave in your world of so-called unbiased science. GuateGojira I know you always win. Please accept my most sincere congratulations. That is the reason because I did not counter-post you for the Nepal tiger food issue, for Nepal/Nagarahole tigers length measurement method and for the Ngorongoro weight estimate issues. Live in peace with your beliefs. I do with mine together with other men of science like me. By the way, you did forget I told you that I took into consideration the Sunquist e-mails concerning the length measurement method that I did not know about and that contradict the official document from Tamang and the official statement by Karanth in his major book. When Sunquist e-mail contents and a Karanth rectification will appear in a peer-reviewed scientific paper or in a peer-reviewed scientific book I will review my consideration. Before that I do not and stick with the official info as it was not me who received those e-mails and I cannot bother Sunquist and Karanth now for such an issue. Be sure that a war with you in the web is the last thing I would do in my life. I have no time and will for it also because I would definitely loose against you and your persistence. So please treat me with kind benevolence. Sanjay I understand your concerns. Do not worry, I want to mess nothing. I do not pretend my statements are considered right, but I believe a website forum cannot go very far with a monotonic music with no critics. A forum should be a place to debate politely and express critical analyses and considerations if any contributor feels necessary. I try to stick to this concept and to the rules. If I break the rules please let me know that immediately. One more thing I know about tigers in depth as much as lions, bears and other mammals. I did not express critical analyses against lions or brown bears so far because in this website the lion and the brown bear are the negative target by all of you. So what exaggerations should I write against in lions an brown bears? In life I tend to side myself with the ones who have little or no words and in this website lions and brown bears have no words. I am sure you get my point. Tigerluver You wrote “WaveRiders. One, we're seeing some Freudian projection in your attacks against posters here, though I'm sure three witnesses is enough for the point to get across. Please keep it to information and not posters.” Honestly it is not very clear to me what you meant for “Freudian projection”. You also wrote “I'd argue your definition of peer-reviewed as I've explained before. Beyond the fact that books are not peer-reviewed like a paper anyhow, Sunquist and Sunquist, the top of the line in felid science, cited 325 kg (a value which has so and so sources in terms of reliability at best) as end range for the Amur tiger. I guess with the logic you've applied, 325 kg wild Amur tigers it is.” You probably referred to the paragraph in my post #414 “However you will never find a zoologist reporting the 320 kg male tiger from Smythies in a peer-reviewed scientific paper or in a peer-reviewed scientific book clearly stating it is the highest accurate and reliable weight of a wild (Bengal) tiger. And this even knowing that they would not be shot by accepting the record as it is the least of the problem in the very most of circumstances of the professional zoology world. The point is that by definition only an occurrence recorded by a professional scientist and presented and discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific paper or in a peer-reviewed scientific book is scientific evidence and prove. That is the way science works and being a man of science I fully agree with the procedure of course.” I did not provide a definition of peer-reviewed paper or book because I assumed you all know. You are writing that “books are not peer-reviewed like a paper anyhow. Sunquist and Sunquist …” Why do you think I wrote “peer-reviewed scientific book” and not simply scientific book? Because it is not the same thing. Do you consider Sunquist and Sunquist (2002) a peer-reviewed scientific book? Well, I do not and in strict terms it is not. It is considerable at the very best a scientific book. These books are also reviewed by a panel of editors, but in a different way from how peer-reviewed scientific books are, and the procedure is “significantly softer” and in a way depending by the author. Tigers of the World (1987, 1999, 2010) are instead peer-reviewed scientific books but this kind of books are also written by one only contributor. You should also look who is the editor as “Oxford University Press is one thing while a remote editor in a remote country is a completely different thing among the same category of books (scientific and pseudo-scientific). So my logic not to consider that absurd table with head-and-body length up to 2.90 meter and 325 kg max weight provided by Sunquist and Sunquist (2002) was correct. Sunquist would have never written that crap info in a peer-reviewed scientific book or in a peer-reviewed scientific paper as he is a great scientist (although nobody is perfect). Now because you have (re)materialized a 500 kg Pleistocene Ngandong tiger, if you do not mind I would have something for you in the Freak Felids thread. Just you and anybody else tell me if you want to read a critical analysis that I believe will be useful to you even if it will disappoint you or you do not want to read it. I do not care much to be honest. The graduate thesis is yours, not mine. WaveRiders  (02-24-2015, 12:25 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Here is the studbook provided by Warsaw, and only few tiger specimens were on the list, so definitely not a complete one. The Original Baikal was not from Canada so this is a different one and If my memory serves me right, Perrault had some experience with this guy or saw him at the Toronto Zoo. [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img] 
@Roflcopters and @GuateGojira when you refer some one, Please try to use "Tag", This help them to get notification and in this way they will reach at correct place to answer any question.
(02-24-2015, 02:58 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote:(02-24-2015, 12:25 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Here is the studbook provided by Warsaw, and only few tiger specimens were on the list, so definitely not a complete one. So the giant Baikal was not born in Canada, but the normal one was, am i right? 
THE DEBATE ON SMYTHIES AND THE 705 LBS. CHITWAN TIGER
a - Introduction A week ago, I received 'Big Game Shooting in Nepal' (E.A. Smythies, Calcutta, 1942). In the posts I did on the book, anyone with a good eye would have noticed that I was disappointed at what I saw. I will read the book in order to get to a table, but not now. The reason is I'm not that interested. Most of my time is invested in tables on skull measurements and body dimensions of big cats. All measurements were collected by those who wrote about the animals they shot themselves. Does this mean the information Smythies offers is unreliable? My conclusion is the information is reliable. This conclusion, however, isn't a result of the quality of the data. It is based on the education, experience and reputation of Smythies. If someone would have said a reputation in itself isn't enough to get to 'reliable', I would agree. The 705-lbs. Chitwan tiger, for this reason, compares to the Sungari River tiger shot by Jankowski and his brothers in 1943: not enough to pass the scientific threshold, but too much to dismiss. b - My posts on the scientific community Those who visit this forum every now and then probably know some of my posts on the scientific community were a bit tentative. More than once, I wrote today's biologists seem unable to measure a big cat in the correct way. I also said some seem to be unaware of the debates on methods waged in different magazines about a century ago. In my last posts, I wrote V. Mazak seemed to have 'overmeasured' tiger skulls and 'undermeasured' those of large lions. Apart from all that, I said I was disappointed at the lack of new data. I don't understand why unknown museums in far-away countries were never visited. I also don't understand why not one attempted to go over the records mentioned in hunting magazines and books. Same for the attitude regarding 'old' records in that many biologists often dismiss anything they didn't see themselves. The one disappointed didn't graduate in biology. Although he claimes he has measured captive big cats, he sincerely thinks 12-foot 700-pound tigers once roamed the forests in India and Manchuria. Although he didn't produce a paper on the skulls he allegedly measured, he doesn't mind posting on a forum. One day, a counter was to be expected and we were not disappointed. c - The debate so far WaveRiders, at 177 pounds and in the blue corner, responded on behalf of the scientific community. He first neutralized all points made (see -b-) and then took the initiative with a few nice hooks. Although one could argue the 18-inchers resulted in overkill to a degree, the referee didn't see him crossing any limits anywhere. Guategojira, also at 177 pounds and in the red corner, responded on behalf of those running the forum. He immediately went to the umpire to say his opponent wanted to start a war, which, of course, was true. While doing so, he took some hooks and one on the liver, but it has to be said he made a nice recovery. When he promised to go all the way, a truth was accepted in round 12, when both were close to entirely spent. All bets are off. d - The essentials of a debate A debate shouldn't be about the dress of the local waitress. It should be about the fundamentals of the issue at hand. The method used shouldn't be about being polite or not, but about those points crucial for the debate. Debating takes skill. Every debate is black and white at some stage. This is a condition needed to be able to cover all angles. In a good debate, those participating will be attacked and those attacked will counter. Some will be proven right and some will be proven wrong. If those participating are unable to cope with the pressure and use their energy to get personal, the objective is lost. It also is the end of the debate. The result of a debate depends on the quality of those participating. In the end, it isn't about winning or losing, but about the best possible answer to the question asked. The best result is reached in a situation in which all participants have equal rights and votes. If one participant says he's a bit more equal than the other in the end, he should buy a ticket to watch the show. e - This forum We know that most forums on animals have been destroyed by 'debates' on lions and tigers and all the rest of it. The reason, apart from bad moderation, was quite many participants didn't have the skill needed. As a result of the destruction witnessed, we decided to refrain from 'debates' right from the start. Debates, however, are essential for a forum. Good information only isn't going to do the job. For this reason, the policy was adapted. f - WaveRiders When WaveRiders joined the forum, not everyone was enthousiastic. I was one who had a few questions. One day, I met him in the Ngorogoro lion thread. After our debate, I concluded he is a well-informed poster with access to good information. I've yet to see inproper use of knowledge and also think he's a good debater, always trying to stick to the issue at hand. I agree he was a bit harsh with Guate, but he wasn't the only one. Furthermore, he apologized. I think he can really contribute to the forum, especially in the departments disregarded by most. As he seems to have a somewhat different background and outlook, especially in the extra-large tiger department, chances are debates will erupt on issues not considered as such by many. It is no secret that the mods, although well-educated, closed a deal with the tiger some time ago. Hence the 12-footers. This, of course, could result in a wee bit of preference at times and we all know that the results can have an effect in the long run. We need posters with a somewhat different outlook. If we want our forum to succeed, debates should be allowed and conducted in a proper way. This takes a lot of skill. And restraint. I'm sure we can get there, if we keep the goal of the forum in mind. Ugh. I now propose to continue on Smythies and the 'allegations' (clarified in -b-) WaveRiders referred to in his posts. GuateGojira\ dateline='\'1424761674' Wrote: I think this is the male Caspian tiger in the Berlin Zoo. I agree it could be a photograph that was coloured later. I'm not that sure about the 10.9 Chitwan tiger. I don't think it was a photograph, but a drawing. Here's a few more photographs of the Berlin Zoo Caspian tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
peter
Thank you once again. I appreciated a lot your post. I honestly feel very sorry that we are rarely in the same wave length. I like to read your posts even when I am in disagreement with your considerations and conclusions. And now an info off topic. LARGEST AMUR TIGER SKULLS I may have a bad news concerning the large Amur tiger skull housed in the Berlin Natural History Museum measured by Mazak at 383 mm in greatest length. By an investigation I did 12-15 years ago I came to know that it seemed that skull was not present in the Museum collection as it could not be located. Perhaps after the Wall fall it went somewhere in Russia or in Czech Republic or who knows where (private collection of a wealthy man?). Maybe they finally located it in the Museum in the last few years. In conclusion we have the 406 mm skull that nobody saw it. A picture of it came from China brought by a Czech with sme measurements hand written on the back of the picture. There is no trace of this skull nowhere. You may have noticed Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) removed that data from the analysis of greatest length of skull vs latitude that Kitchener had initially published in 1999 including that skull. Then we have the supposed 400 mm skull reported by Baikov which nobody saw it, nobody knows where it is and nobody knows how it would have been measured (with teeth and/or mandible included or not). Finally, perhaps the 383 mm Mazak skull disappeared. I really hope it is not the case. It would be worth to investigate again the issue (peter maybe you can try to do it and hopefully find it). WaveRiders
WAVERIDERS
You, to keep it short, said a - Smythies, in the last stage of his career, got an offer he couldn't refuse. Grateful for the offer, he served the Maharajah to the best of his abilities, which resulted in a servile attitude throughout the book. b - Most records in his book are directly from the hunting diary of the Maharajah, meaning Smythies wasn't there himself until 1940, when the Maharajah was nearly done shooting. This means his book can't be regarded as a primary source. c - The information on extra-large tigers in his book is very limited: there are no photographs, there are no body dimensions, there is (apart from the record tiger) no information on weight and there are no skull measurement. Not enough, therefore, to be taken seriously by his peers (like Dunbar Brander) and not enough to be taken seriously by biologists. d - All in all, the records are only interesting for those who are prepared to look the other way. I agree on all points made. Below, I will discuss a few points that made me conclude the records are interesting in spite of that. You could say they could be headed under circumstantial evidence: e - Smythies was a well-educated and experienced Forest Officer with a reputation. Although he wasn't present when the tigers were shot and measured, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you would ask me if I would be prepared to include the measurements in a table intended for the book, the answer would be yes. But the table would be in the lowest category regarding reliability. f - Hewett also hunted in Nepal. The measurements he provided are close to those in the book of Smythies. Based on what Hewett wrote, one would expect to see an extra-large tiger every now and then in Nepal, especially when the one who shot them would be an enthousiastic hunter hunting nearly every year. g - Tiger hunting was popular in the days of Smythies. It was considered 'sport'. For tiger hunters, measurements were important. In order to be able to compare measurements, they decided for a method and rules. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you had to follow the rules. The more important the hunter, the more important the rules. In those days, cheating was out of the question. If you couldn't resist the temptation and your peers found out about it, it was game over. Loss of face would have been one of the most effective results. For this reason, those participating stuck to the rules. Same for Maharajah's and the shikari's they employed. These shikari's, by the way, were mentioned by many writers with a lot of experience. Most were so experienced, they were able to get to an accurate estimate when they saw prints. The shikari's usually were the ones who did the measurements, meaning many were very experienced. There is, I think, no reason to doubt their ability. If we did, it would be a result of arrogance or worse. I know of exceptions to the general rule, but they were exceptions and I don't remember an incident in which the Maharajah of Nepal was involved. h - Although some of the tigers shot in Nepal were very long, they were not extra-exceptional. There are, in fact, quite many records of tigers approaching or even exceeding 11 feet in total length (measured 'over curves'). I assume you are familiar with the article of Lt.-Col. G.F. Waugh in 'Field and Stream' ('Old One Eye' was 11 feet); C.E. Gouldsbury (a tiger of 10.7); Col. A.N.W. Powell (tigers of 10.4, 10.7 and 10.8); J. Inglis (tigers of 10.11, 11.0, 11.1 and 11.5), and R.I. Pocock (1929), who wrote one Annam tiger with a skull of 15,5 x 11,5 was 10.7, probably measured 'between pegs'. There are many more. We could, as many do, just dismiss the lot and stick to measurements taken 'between pegs' by modern biologists, but that would be a tremendous loss of information. It also would be arrogant. Furthermore, I have some questions as to what biologists mean when they say they measured a tiger in the proper way. But that is something to be discussed later.
THE CAPTIVE AMUR TIGER I MEASURED IN 1996
This video belongs in the section on captive animals, but I decided to post it here. It is one of a series of four on seven circus tigers. This is their story. One day, during a show, one of the male Amur tigers escaped. There was a panic, but the trainer was able to prevent problems. When he had guided the male back to the cage and stumbled when he entered, the tiger panicked and bit once. That one bite ended two lives, as the tiger was immediately shot. After the death of the trainer, the tigers had no place to go to. After 7 weeks, they were accepted by the rescue centre in the Netherlands I visited every now and then. The director invited me to measure and weigh the tigers. I got all the help I needed. In this video, tiger Arames was treated. At 194,0 cm. in head and body and 298,0 cm. in total length in a straight line (312,5 cm. 'over curves'), he was the longest. As a result of the many weeks of shortage, all tigers were completely starved and weightwise well below par. Arames was 185,5 kg. when we weighed him. The other two males were a bit shorter, stockier and heavier. One of the two was 211 kg. when he was weighed many years later at Schiphol Airport. For those interested, I'm not in the video. The best view of the Amur tiger is after about 6 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wylE2kgUJnU&feature=relmfu
Annam was the old name for Vietnam, so there were giant Indochinese tigers that existed in the past.
@Pckts, for example, has collected some 6 inches canine from Thailand, and i wonder if this has anything to do with those giant Indochinese specimens.
@GrizzlyClaws
here are the email extracts from Kingtheropod's contact with the Cherry brook zoo.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 97 Guest(s) |