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)
|
 (02-26-2015, 01:09 AM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: for all we know, It could've been a two on one fight. remember no one saw the actual fight, just heard the commotion and figured something was wrong and that's when Baikal's dead body was found. The enclosure that Baikal managed to get into had two sub-adult male brothers weighing around 350lbs each.. Remember the brothers who teamed up and actually one of them got killed against a older male tiger pretty recently.  (02-26-2015, 12:57 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: By estimation, since he got killed by a 2 years old 350 pounder. Hi, Are you sure Vasili and his brother Samkha are just 350 pounders, because they looked bigger. Here is a pic of the brothers  *This image is copyright of its original author Regarding Baikal who was killed. What I found was both the 850 pound Baikal and the Baikal that was killed are different tigers. Here is some proof This is the original picture of the 850lb Baikal  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author The Baikal that was killed recently is this tiger and we can clearly see the stripe patterns are different  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Check this link (posted by Rofl before) http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/09/25/ti...e-park-zoo So both the Baikals are different. This is the picture of the fighting tigers  *This image is copyright of its original author Check the video in the link http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/t...-1.2778510 Quote: Even captive youngsters know to attack the hind section just like a coalition of male lions. If you have numbers you go for the rear, simple as that. TFS 
Peter, I don't think anyone has ever asked you this question over the years but i just wanted to know if you had a favorite tiger from the past or present (captive/wild).. I'm very curious [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
 (02-27-2015, 11:03 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: Peter, I don't think anyone has ever asked you this question over the years but i just wanted to know if you had a favorite tiger from the past or present (captive/wild).. I'm very curious  (03-03-2015, 09:17 AM)'peter' Wrote:(02-27-2015, 11:03 PM)'Roflcopters' Wrote: Peter, I don't think anyone has ever asked you this question over the years but i just wanted to know if you had a favorite tiger from the past or present (captive/wild).. I'm very curious
I second that, thank you for taking your time out to go in details about how you truly feel about tigers deep down. I feel the same way, I have always been fascinated with tigers. As a child, I remember going to the zoo and I can recall how captivated I was by the sight of the tigers making a grand entrance for the crowd and it wasn't until i got a glimpse of a wild tiger on television that i began to get curious about their lives. I remember very precisely, It was a short documentary aired on National Geography about a Tiger vs Crocodile that fought over a sambhar kill (Abu of Ranthambore in the late 80's). How differently I look at tigers today. I can pretty much say that I've learned a lot more than your average person would have. The stories of Charger, Sultan, the Man eaters of Kumaon, the man eaters of the Sunderbans, the sumatrans, the Caspians, Jim Corbett are just far too exciting to not be involved with tigers. Thanks to the efforts of everyone here and in the past that shared their experiences, photos, stories and brought tons of informations on tigers.
 *This image is copyright of its original author (Nice dense forest, 10000 shades of green, freedom, rich vegetation & plenty of prey) this is what i feel about the extinct tigers in my dreams, Bali, Javan and South Chinese. No caspian, I imagine them differently in my imaginations. they're more like desert tigers to me.  *This image is copyright of its original author This is pretty close to what i see with my eyes closed on Caspians.  *This image is copyright of its original author Or during the end of their reign, when humanity discovered their potential.. this is what they were reduced to, prior to their extinction.  *This image is copyright of its original author Or this, in the Roman Times. regarding the best picture of all time, I think we're on the same page here. Peter.  *This image is copyright of its original author This is hands down the most heartbreaking picture ever photographed in the wild, what makes it even more interesting is the fact that all these cubs survived and are now under the watchful eyes of the Chinese/Russian authorities. If there's truly a story with an happy ending to it, this has to be it. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]   *This image is copyright of its original author Database:  *This image is copyright of its original author Only adults were used. Body length scales near isometrically at 2.94, much different from Bengal scaling of >3.5. Chest girth also scaled negatively allometrically compared other species. The negative allometry might indicate a loss or limit of body/bone density in my opinion, as even a robusticity measurement is negatively allometric.
The information posted by Tigerluver, to be sure, relates to wild Amur tigers.
Maybe you are able to produce a single table with the results for Indian tigers, Amur tigers and South African lions? Would be appreciated.
I'll transfer my length databases here soon, but I'll have to use total lengths as I've logged the most data like that. Though, I don't have as much on chest girth, any sources would be helpful for me to pump out a better equation. For lions, I've east African individual length data points, most courtesy of Guate. Any direction to sources with individual values (not averages or ranges as scientists have a habit of publishing) of South African lion girth and length, alongside the individuals's masses?
THE MEANING OF BIG CATS
a - The ultimate hunter Cats are perhaps the ultimate terrestrial hunters. They will make a living anywhere given half a chance. The reason is design and the attitude needed to use it to perfection. Most domestic cats would easily survive when they would be forced to do so. We most certainly would not. Animals don't need us to survive. There's no question we need them. Thousands of years ago, cats ruled the world for a long time. The attitude one would expect to go with it is still there, but most adapted when humans took over. All wild cats are adaptors, always ready to sneak in and join the party. Lions and tigers, I think, are a bit different in that they kept something that was there many thousands of years ago. Some would say it's an attitude typical for rulers, but I would go for something very close to what we call awareness. Supreme awareness. b - Lions In lions, it's still very visible. Captive lions in particular seem to live in another dimension. A dimension that has no humans. They just don't care about us. Or anything else, for that matter. To them, we could be just another species sharing their world. Maybe they see us as potential competitors and maybe they see us as a potential source of food. I don't know, but I do know many captive lions do not like humans. Many keepers had bad experiences. I have reliable reports of incidents you wouldn't want to know about. Lions won't kill you directly when they get to you. They will make you regret the mistake you made first. The dimension in which lions live compares to a culture. As an outsider, you are not accepted. Only a lion is. The only exceptions I know of are (some) trainers and those who raised cubs to adulthood. At times, the unwillingness to communicate with humans is interpreted as a result of a lack of intelligence, but those who know wild lions would get to a very different conclusion. There's no doubt that they are intelligent. Maybe the unwillingness to communicate in captive lions is a result of culture and maybe it's their way to say they do not agree with the situation they face every bloody day for the rest of their life. c - Tigers In captive tigers, awareness is visible, but 'tigerishness' often is not. My guess is it partly is a result of their solitary way of life. Solitary animals need to communicate. Lions can afford to shoot first and ask questions later, but tigers can't. No communication is not done, so they communicate. With every creature they see, humans included. But maybe they do not communicate after all. Not in the way we think they do, I mean. They will figure you out. When you think they enjoy your company, they might have made up their mind. About the opportunity that will come sooner or later. The so-called lack of 'tigerishness', in my opinion, is more superficial than anything else. Very much so, I'd say. The moment you step into the cage, you enter their world and they will tell you in no uncertain way things have now changed. Not in the way lions or bears do, but they will tell you. d - Monsters of God Wild tigers and lions still are sitting on top of the world. It's their world and they know. Both are exceedingly intelligent and know things have changed. Humans now rule, but not in the way they did. We lack the abilities and the awareness they have and they know. Our strength is in numbers. They will make way for us, but we shouldn't overdo it. When we do, they will act and reverse the situation. They are wild animals and will never change. Wild big cats, as David Quamman wrote, are what we need. We need monsters of God. Not because we cherish fear, but because we know things might spiral out of control the moment they disappear. To me, big cats are not monsters. They are the ultimate result of evolution. They have just about everything I could think of and yet lack the things we often see in quite many humans. It's most certainly not a result of a lack of ability. When we think of big cats, we think of tooth and claw. It is, however, something different. Big cats have power. So much so, they are capable to bring down even the largest herbivores and break their neck. They also have something that can be seen as an overdrive of aggressiveness. I saw it a few times and will not forget it. When we discuss tigers and bears or tigers and wild boars or elephants, we bring in weight, size and weapons. The main assett of a big cat, however, is the overdrive mentioned. It's a mental thing difficult to describe. e - Awareness When I see a wild big cat, I see wild country and all things we had only a century ago or so. The moment we lose it, it will never return. That's the moment the countdown will accelerate. In the last decades, we have witnessed a few things that can be seen as a prelude. It getting worse every year. Many think that nature will recover when it gets the chance to do so, but my take is it will go real fast once a critical threshold has been crossed. The reason is the extremes get more pronounced. There are interesting studies of rat societies. A collapse usually is announced with a neglect of child care and education. Than it's the turn of the gate keepers. Once they have disappeared, things go down real fast. I don't think humans will succumb to internal strive. When they go down, it most likely will be a result of a collapse of research and logistics. Just like in a real war. We only need one virus able to adapt and a few years of no progress. No progress could be a result of cut-backs or big corporations deliberately benefiting from disease. It could also be a result of the decision to refrain from action in order to up the demand just one more month. Maybe someone decides a deadly virus is needed to win a war, but a criminal decision in order to make a few more dollars seems more likely. This, after all, is the ultimate result of the system we embraced. Once the internal check, the State, is demolished or removed, anything is possible. A weapon only has an effect when it is not used or when it is used with intention. Big predators show us how it should be done, but they had a very long time to get to the experience needed. And what do we see? Even at their zenith, they were far from invincible. Every big cat has to work hard for his money and any mistake can be the last. The reason is his potential victims also know about evolution. Evolution without balance is an experiment gone wrong, not evolution. A bad experiment will result in failure, meaning it will not survive. What we see now is not a failure, because it's still here. A tiger, like all predators, is not a mindless serial killer. For me, a tiger, if anything, is about timing, balance and rightiousness. Guess why that is. Three concepts completely unknown to-, but deeply engrained in all mammals. All but one: the would-be predator who forgot he fell out of a tree while trying to get to a shiny object needed to impress the others. f - Porc When you don't agree, don't hold it against me. Below is the one who told me. It's the tiger I sometimes see in my dreams. He's from Russia and likes hunting wild boars on steep hills. He's very good at it. For some reason, I'm getting more and more interested in porc these days. Porc a la poivre (French), porc a la Indonesia (curry) and porc a la Chabarowsk (pickles). When I told the tiger about it, he said he always goes for porc a la right now, adding you never have a match when you need one:  *This image is copyright of its original author
(03-06-2015, 10:08 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I'll transfer my length databases here soon, but I'll have to use total lengths as I've logged the most data like that. Though, I don't have as much on chest girth, any sources would be helpful for me to pump out a better equation. For lions, I've east African individual length data points, most courtesy of Guate. Any direction to sources with individual values (not averages or ranges as scientists have a habit of publishing) of South African lion girth and length, alongside the individuals's masses? Try the Appendix in the book of Stevenson-Hamilton ('Wildlife in South Africa'). It has details of the fifty largest lions he shot. 
No need to ask, here is the table with the records of Stevenson-Hamilton:
 *This image is copyright of its original author I have finished that table months ago, but I wanted to add more data of other specimens from the Southern region. Sadly, time is not my friend right now, so take the data and use it. Greetings to all. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Impressive averages by any standard. In head and body, Kruger male lions, a century ago, were equal to male tigers in Central India (also a century ago) and only two inches below today's male Amur tigers.
A few remarks have to be added, of course: 1 - Stevenson-Hamilton, as he announced in the Appendix, selected the fifty largest males, whereas the average for Central India was a result of a sample half that size. Some of the tigers Dunbar Brander mentioned were selected for size, but the great majority of the 42 he used for his average were not. 2 - The Amur sample, apart from being significantly smaller as well, had a number of 3-year old tigers, some of which, judging from the other measurements, clearly had some growing to do. This is important, as there is no doubt there are significant differences between age groups (adolescents, young adults and mature males). For indirect proof, go to the Natal leopard table I posted in this thread. The differences between age groups are significant. 3 - If we would include the remarks to get to a more reliable average for India and Russia, my guess is tigers would be a bit longer in head and body and quite a bit longer in total length. Kruger lions would just fall short of 9 feet straight (let's assume they averaged 8.11), whereas Central India tigers would get to 9.3 and Amur tigers, without the 3-year olds, would probably reach 9.9. 4 - A century ago, Kruger lions were not as heavy as similar-sized male tigers in Central India. The Kruger sample, of course, is very small (5 males only) and it also is a fact the lions were adjusted (not true for Central Indian tigers), but a century ago a big male, as Stevenson-Hamilton wrote, was below 400 pounds, whereas a Central India tiger, according to all in the know, was well over that mark. Today's Krugers are 414 pounds (adjusted), but that's still below the average for today's males in Central India. They could compare to the average for Primorye, but my guess is Miquelle, who thought males averaged 430 pounds, could be just about right. The question is why Kruger lions, in spite of their large size, fall short of the average seen in India and Russia. My guess is WaveRiders, who thought Zimbabwe and East-Africa male lions, although a bit shorter, are more robust is right. Same as in tigers, so it seems. Those inhabiting Russia, in spite of their length, are not as robust as those living in better conditions in India, although it has to be added that tigers in Nepal and North-India, also very long, are definitely heavier than Amur tigers and those in Central India. We know food is not a factor in Kruger, but it is a factor in Russia. When food is no issue, like in India, tigers, at similar length, seem quite a bit heavier. Why is that? 5 - One last issue. Data. Why is it I see robust tigers not weighed time and again? Why is it Krechmar wrote there are still big tigers in Russia? How reliable is the sample used to get to the averages published and much quoted? The problem, as usual, is data. Good, reliable data. Plenty of them, to be precise. Why is it such a problem in so many regions with researchers? If we don't get enough data, the result can be misinformation. My guess is we are close to just that.  *This image is copyright of its original author n=53 for girth relationship. n=30 for length relationship. The chest girth relationship is bad. Length is moderately strong. A second for Amurs:  *This image is copyright of its original author Total length this time, n=21 Note the positive allometry in mass vs. total length in the Amur tiger, opposed to the slight negative allometry in the body length relationship. From this, it looks like tails get proportionately shorter at greater lengths, causing the total length to not look as impressive as the mass of the specimen, when in actuality the specimen is long bodied but just short tailed as the graphs suggest. Finally, I won't bother with a girth comparison, the correlation is abysmal for the Bengal tiger. But here's the side by side total length comparison:  *This image is copyright of its original author |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |