Sri-Lanka(n)/Ceylon Lion, Ceylon (Bengal) Tiger & Ceylon (Asiatic) Cheetah

[GuateGojira]

@Sanju, is not good to blindly believe in a researcher, specially when his/her metodology is flawed. Check that they analisys in the phalanx is rater circular, like if they are trying to prove that those were "tigers". We must be critical in the analisys of the investigators, after all they are not 100% perfect and the results may be incorrect.

They base they conclusion because the size of the phalanx are of the same size than those of the "tigress of the Deccan", but how "large" is that particular tigress? There are other tiger phalanx that we can use to compare it? I will like to see a larger sample of leopards to make a comparison too, as the only large cat from the island is the leopard. 

Other thing, they create a huge analysis that is not even related with the tiger in the island, indeed the analisys of Kitchener & Dugmore (1999) which they quote, do show that the presence of tigers could be minimum in Sri Lanka as the habitat was not the best for tiger presence. Also, the presence of the lion could be the most efective barrier of the tiger dispersal, not only for its numbers (pride of lions) but also for the habitat preferences. Remember that the same happen with the claim that tigers lived in Alaska (I do believed that too), but a DNA analisys showed that some of those specimens labeled as "tigers" were in fact Panthera spelaea, not tigers.

I think that base an analysis in just a morphological analysis and with a very small sample of the only large cat that actually live in the island (only one leopard!) is very dangerous. I will prefer a DNA analysis, it will be much more efective and will clarify the situation once for all. 

There is more evidence of the existence of the tiger in Borneo than tigers in Sri Lanka. By the way, what do you understand of this phrase: "While the Kuruwita and Ratnapura fossils show that lions and tigers were sympatric in this area, however, there is no evidence to suggest they were syntopic."

We must be critical of the studies that we read, I have saw many documents that were proved to be incorrect by other scientists, so even when a document is "published and per review", that doesn't mean that are perfect and that is something that, at this moment, must be a great concern. For example, why so much people in this forum reject the conclusions of the IUCN regarding the tiger "subspecies", specially when there is plenty of evidence that the "subspecies" were a man made efect, not by the nature! Reply