Login

peter · 09-26-2015, 05:59 AM

(09-09-2015, 02:29 PM)sanjay Wrote: well, I don't recall the exact source of the below article, but I found it somewhere on internet and thought to post here becasue it seems to interesting

GENETIC ANCESTRY OF THE EXTINCT JAVAN AND BALI TIGERS - CONCLUSIONS

1 - CONCLUSIONS

A few weeks ago, I posted a summary of a new and very interesting article on the evolution of tigers ('Genetic Ancestry of the Extinct Javan and Bali Tiger', Xue et al, 2015). The most important conclusions were:

1a - Earliest fossils and common ancestor

01 - The earliest tiger fossils found in China and Java date back to the early Pleistocene (2 million years ago).
02 - Molecular genetic imputation traces all living tigers back to a common ancestor as recent as 72 000 - 108 000 years ago.
03 - The Toba eruption in Sumatra 73 500 years ago may have contributed to the recent coalescence for modern tigers.

1b - Current tiger taxonomy

04 - Current tiger taxonomy recognizes 6 living subspecies.
05 - Mainland Asia tigers parse into 5 distinct groups (P.t. tigris, P.t. altaica, P.t. amoyensis, P.t. corbetti and P.t. jacksoni).
06 - P.t. tigris is genetically distinct from the other mainland subspecies, corresponding to an early divergance.

1c - Sunda tigers

07 - Bali, Java and Sumatra tigers (P.t. balica, P.t. sondaica and P.t. sumatrae) derived from a common matrilineal genetic lineage.
08 - All 3 Sunda tiger subspecies are genetically closer to each other than to mainland Asia tiger subspecies.
09 - All 3 Sunda tiger subspecies are distinctly different from each other, indicating a restriction or lack of matrilineal gene flow among the three islands.
10 - The modern, now extinct, Javan tiger is not an autochthoneous descendant of a historic tiger population.

1d - Modern tiger evolution

11 - There once was a widespread tiger population from China (P.t. amoyensis) to the Sunda Shelf (P.t. balica, P.t. sondaica and P.t. sumatrae) that became isolated as a result of rising sea levels during interglacial periods.
12 - A second wave of expansion and divergence (P.t. tigris, P.t. corbetti, P.t. altaica, P.t. virgata and P.t. jacksoni) replaced much of the range of P.t. amoyensis and evolved into modern population in Indochina, the Indian Subcontinent, the Caucasus and the Russian Far East, where tigers fossils are only found from the Holocene.

2 - QUESTIONS

The article is one of the best on tiger evolution I read. It answers a number of questions at a high level of abstraction in that it is now more or less clear in what period tigers and subspecies evolved.

The origin of tigers can be traced back to southern China about 2 million years ago, maybe a few hundred thousand years earlier. From China, they first spread south to the Sunda Shelf. This would make sense, as a large part of central and northern Asia was still covered with ice in the Pleistocene. At the end of the Pleistocene, maybe as a result of the Toba eruption, tigers probably became extinct in the Sunda Shelf.

Some time later, a second wave followed. Tigers again spread south to the Sunda Shelf. When most of the Shelf was inundated, Sunda tigers became extinct in Palawan and Borneo, but they managed to survive on Bali, Java and Sumatra. It is likely tigers reached Sumatra later, because Sumatran tigers are different from Bali and Java tigers.

Many thousands of years later, just before the Holocene, tigers spread west from China to the Indian Subcontinent. Some time later, about 2 000 years, they colonized other parts of Asia. As a result of human expansion, they became extinct in most parts of mainland Asia. This happened between 1850-1980.

Although the major developments are clear, some questions were not answered:

13 - Why are Sumatran tigers different from Bali and Javan tigers if all 3 inhabited a similar region?

It has been confirmed that Sunda tigers became isolated from mainland Asia tigers when the Sunda Shelf was inundated. This probably happened when the ice melted at the end of the Pleistocene or the beginning of the Holocene, well after the second wave had reached the Sunda Shelf. As Bali, Javan and Sumatran tigers also are distinctly different from each other, it is likely they became isolated when the sea level rose further. One would tend to think this probably happened in the last 10 000 years, but there's reason for doubt as Sumatran tigers are quite different from Bali and Javan tigers, This, in my opinion, points towards an earlier divergence. Unresolved, I'd say.

14 - Did tigers cross the western part of the Himalayas to reach the Caspian region, did they travel west from China or were both routes used? If both routes were used, which was used first?

Mainland Asia tigers evolved into 5 distinct subspecies in the last 12 000 years or so. Indian tigers are different from the 4 other mainland subspecies, because they diverged a bit earlier. If we assume those close to China (P.t. corbetti and P.t. jacksoni) evolved before the others (P.t. altaica and P.t. virgata), the question is which of the two most remote regions (the Caspian region and northeast China) was colonized first. Although some researchers think it was the Caspian region, there's reason for doubt. One reason is tigers apparently reached Japan well before the Holocene started, which points towards an early wave directed to the north. Another is northeast China is closer to southern China than the Caspian region. It's also easier to reach that region.

I know Amur and Caspian tigers are one and the same, but genetic similarity doesn't answer the questions on both. J.F. Brandt (1856) wrote Amur tigers traveling west were seen well west of Lake Baikal, but he also said Caspian tigers, following a more southerly route, were seen traveling east. Those in the southern part of the route were reddish in colour as well as a bit smaller than those following a different route. Based on what I read, I'd say it is more than likely Caspian tigers expanded to the east and Amur tigers expanded to the west at about the same time. Apparently, they sometimes met and bred, especially in the northern part of the Trans-Baikal route close to the origin of rivers flowing north. As a result of the harsh climate and the lack of prey animals in winter, many of these tigers would have been wanderers by nature. Brandt wrote some followed wild boars and reindeer. In this way, they reached regions where tigers were never seen before. This happened in the 18th and 19th century.

The question on how tigers reached the Caspian region is difficult to answer. Did they cross the Indus from western India and travel north and west, did they cross the western part of the Himalayas from northwest India or did China tigers travel west? Not one option can be excluded, I think. There are persistent rumours about tigers inhabiting remote and elevated regions in Afghanistan. It is also known they are able to breed at an altitude of 10 000 - 12 000 feet in Bhutan. If tigers are able to survive and breed at that altitude, one can't exclude wanderers from Kumaon and Nepal following corridors to the north. My guess is tigers also crossed the Indus River. Finally, there is no question tigers crossed the region between the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal in both directions.

Although genetically almost similar, Caspian and Amur tigers also are quite different. Caspian tigers, more than other subspecies, have quite short snouts. This was so clear, it was noticed in living animals. The Caspian tigers in the Berlin Zoo were described as short-faced tigers. In Amur tigers, however, the snout is longer and straighter than in other subspecies. Same (straighter) for the sagittal crest. Many Caspian tiger skulls have a very vaulted profile. Not so in the Amur skulls I saw. If I was asked to get to a conclusion based on the drawings I saw and skulls I measured, my guess for now would be Caspian tigers, although distinct, are closer to Indian tigers than to Amur tigers.

15 - In what way are Malayan tigers (P.t. jacksoni) different from P.t. corbetti and P.t. amoyensis?

This question will be addressed in the next post. For now, I can say P.t. jacksoni is an enigma to me. Apart from size, I wonder in what respects they are different from P.t. corbetti and P.t. sumatrae.

16 - What is the reason that subspecies, without losing specific characters, change in size almost overnight (a century or less)? In what way does size affect the unique characters?

This question, as far as I know, was never addressed. A pity, as it is known that tigers in some regions in mainland Asia are quite a bit larger or smaller than those in nearby regions. I also noticed they quickly changed in size in some regions in a century only.

Genetically, Sunderban tigers and Central India tigers are one and the same. I read descriptions of Sunderban tigers in different books. Although a bit smaller than their relatives in Central India, large animals were not unknown. In the last 50 years or so, Sunderban tigers suddenly changed. Many of the animals darted and weighed were unhealthy and they were even smaller than many Sumatran tigers. The change in size is so outspoken, that some biologists thought they had developed into a distinct subspecies. My guess is the change is a result of a loss of size foremost, but I wouldn't be surprised to find they developed unique characters in the last century.

When Vietnam was French Indochina, it was promoted as a paradise for hunters in the USA. Many hunters came over and tried their luck in the first decades of the last century. Most visited Annam on the east coast. To their surprise, tigers easily surpassing your average Indian tiger in all respects were not uncommon. Although their reports were dismissed as easily as reports on large Indian tigers, it is an undisputed fact skulls exceeding 15 inches found their way to Rowland Ward every now and then. Pocock mentioned one in his article on tigers that was published in the JBNHS (1929).

It isn't easy to find your way in records, but I think there's no question Annam and Laos produced male tigers well exceeded 9 feet straight and 400 pounds on a regular basis. In books in which exceptional animals featured, I also read tigers in other parts of French Indochina were quite small. I do not doubt some tigers exceeded 11 feet 'over curves' in Annam. At least one of them was 260 kg. (Bazé). This animal only hunted very large herbivores. A German hunter shot a 298 cm. male estimated at about 240 kg. in the west of what was then South-Vietnam in the early sixties of the last century. Some of the photographs I saw pointed towards tigers that definitely compared to an average male Indian tiger. But less than 100 miles away, a male tiger only very seldom exceeded 9 feet and 350 pounds. Tigers often swimming to the numerous islands in the Mekong were described as 'water tigers'. Many of them were stocky, but short.

17 - What was the function of the Isthmus of Kra?

The more I read, the more I'm convinced this part of Asia could have been a kind of bridge between mainland Asia tigers and those in Malaysia. In the days of unrestricted gene flow, tigers in Malaysia, although smaller than those in India, exceeded 9 feet straight on a regular basis. There's plenty of indisputable evidence. Today, as a result of restricted access and the downfall of tigers in general, large tigers are unheard of. In the extreme south of Malaysia (Johore and Terengganu), tigers seem to compare to Sumatran tigers. If they reach the size of an average Sumatran tiger at all. One wonders why tigers living in isolated regions suddenly lose size overnight (less than a century). An issue neglected by many, so it seems.

What's this, my friend? Don't you recognize the style of your companion?

I wrote this summary.

It was posted on the extinction thread on tigers. Don't know where, but it's there for sure. When you found it, tell the one who used it he should at least have the decency to mention the source.

peter · 09-26-2015, 06:14 AM

(09-25-2015, 03:19 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Body size of the Island tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica) - preliminary:

As part of my project of scaling all the subspecies/populations of the great cats, tigers are fundamental in this goal. However, I have found a reef that is impossible to avoid: the data of island tigers is ridiculous scanty! In fact, I have found that:

1. The ranges for the Sumatran tigers stated by Mazák (1981) are estimations, obtained from the reported specimens of Sody and some skins measurements, mostly for the females. I had not foudn where he get the weights that he reported, but the figures from wild specimens captured in modern days fit very well.

2. For Javanese tigers, he only accepted one total length (248 cm) and discarded the large male of Sody (270 cm, Skull of 331 in GSL), but a comparison between skull length and body size with other tiger specimens measured "between pegs" shows that the size of this male is plausible and fit very well with the values of the other males (ratio of 5.44, for a mean of 5.40 overall). Only one weight is know (142 kg, male), all others are estimations.

3. There are no reliable measurements or weights of Bali tigers available, just one female measured but Mazák believed that, based on its skull size, the reported measurements were taken "over curves" or from a skin. There is a "new" size from a large specimen of Gondol and the few pictures of relative large males, show that this population was as large as the Sumatran tigers. The estimations from Mazák, specially for males, are certainly underestimations.

Based on this, I decided the make an unique (and probably very controversial) comparative image, which will summarize all the Island tigers data like a "single subspecies", following the last studies of 2015. Of course, the data on skulls will be the main focus, but I will post also the few body sizes reported and adjusted like Mazák done in its moment.

@peter, I need your help. As you have the book of Mazák "Der Tiger", I will like to know if is possible to you to post the average figures of the skull size of the Sumatran, Javan and Bali tigers (males and females, with ranges and sample size) that he measured. I know that J. H. Mazák had published his own data in 2006, but I will like to see that one of V. Mazák too. In advance, thanks for any help.

1 - SKULL MEASUREMENTS OF PANTHERA (tigris) SUMATRAE, PANTHERA (tigris) SONDAICA AND PANTHERA (tigris) BALICA - Source: 'Der Tiger' (V. Mazak, 1983)

*This image is copyright of its original author

2 - SKULL MEASUREMENTS OF PANTHERA TIGRIS ALTAICA, PANTHERA TIGRIS TIGRIS AND PANTHERA TIGRIS VIRGATA - Source: 'Der Tiger' (V. Mazak, 1983)

*This image is copyright of its original author

peter · 09-26-2015, 07:00 AM

(09-26-2015, 04:56 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Source (p. 246 and onward)

Now, I'm assuming that those absurdly long tigers were measured over curves based on the numbers themselves and the mass associated. I also noted that the author asserts that the Bali and Javan tiger may be of the same stature, as @GuateGojira theorized.

Thanks, Tigerluver. I read the book of Hoogerwerf and tried to contact him a year ago, only to find he had already left our planet. A pity. I definitely advice to read his book, Guate. It's online.

As to Java and Bali tiger skulls. The skulls I saw, and I saw quite many, clearly say Java tigers were larger. For now, I'd say the correct order (greatest total length) is P.t. altaica; P.t. tigris; P.t. virgata; P.t. corbetti; P.t. amoyensis; P.t. sondaica; P.t. sumatrae and P.t. balica. Skulls of Indian tigers seem to be more dense than those of other subspecies, although Java skulls also are quite massive. Some of those I weighed, although shorter, were heavier than the Indian skull recently discussed in a new thread.

I really wonder if virgata was larger than corbetti, as V. Mazak suggested. Southeast Asia is a large place. Although males didn't reach 9 feet straight in most regions, some produced large males. One skull from Annam exceeded 400,00 mm. I remember a poster who saw an exhibition in Paris. He said one of the (stuffed) males was larger and much bigger than an average male Amur tiger. Bazé mentions a male of 260 kg. and 338 cm. 'over curves' and he was the most modest of those I read. Others, also from France, wrote tigers in some parts of French Indochina at times well exceeded 10 feet in total length ('over curves'). American hunters confirmed Vietnam tigers were not smaller than those in India a century ago.

Biologists will say there is no proof in museum collections. True. I also agree it is about the average size. But there's no doubt there were regional differences. Cochin China tigers were small to average. Same for those in the northeast and extreme south. But those in Annam and Laos were medium-sized to large. In the first decades of the last century, Vietnam was very popular. For American hunters, it was closer, cheaper and easier to reach than India. Many tigers were shot and most skulls were taken home. Some were later sold to collectors.

The confusion on size probably is a result of limited samples. I also noticed a lack of accuracy. A few years ago, I went over all skulls I had measured. The aim was to see if there were differences between age groups. The answer was affirmative. The differences are quite outspoken.

sanjay · 09-26-2015, 09:17 AM

Sorry Peter, I didn't recognize it. I had downloaded it, so I don't recall from where I get it.

GuateGojira · 09-26-2015, 09:31 AM

Excellent information @peter, thank you very much! Sadly, it seems that V. Mazák did not presented average figures for the smaller tigers, just like he did with the largest ones. It seems that the average figures from J. H. Mazák in 2006 are too small as he excluded the larger skulls just because they didn't have mandibles and were useless for his craniometric comparisons.

It is interesting to see that Mazák mention the large skull of 385 mm reported by Heptner & Sludskii, and concluded that it was unreliable as the other measurements did not match. This also show that this skull could be measured along the curves of the bone, instead of a straight line with calipers. Maybe you could translate it better than I.

@tigerluver, also thank you for the image of the book of Hoogerwerf, in fact I already have it, the full chapter of the tiger, and the past day I try to upload it here, but the page told me that it was "too heavy" and I was unable to put it here.

The problem with those records is that there is no way to know if those were real measurements in the flesh or from skins, leave alone if they were taken over curves or between pegs.

It is interesting to see this record of 185 kg for a Sumatran tiger at 310 cm in total length (over curves in the flesh, or skin?). By the way, the largest Javanese male of 270 cm with the skull of 331 mm is the one that weighed 142 kg. So the larger specimen, with the skull of 349 mm should be larger and heavier, not by much, but definitely a bit more (about 282 cm in total length and c.150-160 kg).

tigerluver · 09-26-2015, 09:55 AM

My gut tells me the measurements are of the skin. I mean 310 mm and 185 kg would only work on a cheetah's built. About 170 kg is likely on point for that Javan specimen (I used isometry with the Java skull and a few other skulls), unless of course, it just had a big head.

Is the 270 cm male measured over curves? He's a bit lighter than what I would expect based on the robust long bones of the Javan form. De Kanter's lengths seem a bit inflated, he likely measured over some serious curves or stretched out skins.

GuateGojira · 09-26-2015, 10:42 AM

At the beginning, I also believed that the length of 270 cm (180 head-body) should be "over curves". However, based in some other specimens of tigers measured "between pegs", the ratio of these were of 5.40, very much like this Javanese specimen (head-body 1800 mm & 331 mm GLS = 5.44). So, that lead me to think that in fact, this could be a measurement "between pegs", this and the fact that the foot size is also stated, let me think that the specimen was measured carefully.

However, the problem is that according with Hoogerwerf, the original source stated a length 275 cm and a shoulder height of 109 cm. Although the shoulder height can be explained by the fact that it was taken from the shoulder to the tip of the paw, the total length do suggest a "over the curves" measurement this time. This could mean a head-body of c.170 cm "between pegs", tail of 90 cm and a shoulder height of c.80 cm (remember that it was taken over the curves and up to the tip).

tigerluver · 09-26-2015, 10:52 AM

Keep in the mind that the original source that gave the 275 mm value gave a 310 mm value for a 185 kg Sumatran tiger. A tiger of that mass is more likely around 280 cm in a straight line. Could you please post the account of the recently weighed Sumatran tiger in the associated thread as well? I'd like to see the mass and if there was a length associated, I can't remember.

GuateGojira · 09-26-2015, 12:50 PM

Sorry, the recently radiocollared Sumatran male tiger "Slamet" did not have any measurement reported, just the weight (148.2 kg).

Here is the image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

However, check these images:

*This image is copyright of its original author

According with Mazák (1983), a large Sumatran male tiger can measure up to 170 cm in head-body "between pegs" and this male certainly looks like that size.

I can guess, based in the few specimens available, that Sumatran and Javanese tigers were of the same average size, with some Javanese reaching the top line. Balinese tigers are so few on record, but based in all the skulls available, they definitely were of the same size of the smaller Sumatran and Javanese specimens. I am not taking in count any body size reported for the Balinese tigers for this assumption, they are not 100% reliable, with many issues still to discuss.

GuateGojira · 09-27-2015, 02:08 AM

@peter, sorry for disturb you again, but I have a doubt.

I was collecting all the skulls reported for the Javanese tigers in literature, and I think that is very weird that J. H. Mazák did not included the large male skull of 349 mm in his document. However, he mentions that used the data from V. Mazák, which do measured this skull.

My question to you is:
I know that you measured this specimen, here is the picture:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, I will like to know if the measurements reported by Mazák (1983) and Sody (1947) are accurate with your own. I see no reason to exclude this specimen.

Help me please.

GuateGojira · 09-27-2015, 04:20 AM

Following with the analysis of the skull size, as surrogate of overall dimensions of the Sunda tigers, I manage to create the following graphic, comparing the GSL of the three populations of Sunda tigers, grouped in a single subspecies (Panthera tigris sondaica) following Wilting et al. (2015).

*This image is copyright of its original author

Source: Buzas & Farkas, 1996; Mazák et al., 1977; Mazák, 1983; Mazák & Groves, 2006; Sody, 1949.

At first sight, we can see that the Sumatran and the Javanese tigers are about the same size, the sample sizes are similar so we can get a good idea of the size variation. It is interesting that in the case of the males, Javanese tigers top the line while in the case of the females, Sumatran specimens show the maximum size, however in both cases, the differences are minimal (less than 2 cm in the extreme case).

Balinese tigers seems to be particularly smaller, take in count that I did not include the female (holotype) of 252 mm as is a subadult. However, we most remember that there are only 3 male and 4 female specimens and all fit very well in the range of the other populations. Besides, the photographic evidence suggest a similar size, in the case of the largest Balinese males.

This suggest me, that even when the Balinese tigers are in fact, the smallest of the populations, the difference in size should not be too dramatic as we could think. Besides, with body masses calculated between 78-125 kg (using the condylobasal length, based in Christiansen & Harris (2009)), they match the weight of the modern Sundarbans tigers.

I think that making a comparative image, summarizing the three populations like a single subspecies is correct, as the smallest Sumatran-Javanese tigers are smaller than the smallest Balinese tigers on record.

peter · 09-27-2015, 04:32 AM

(09-27-2015, 02:08 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: @peter, sorry for disturb you again, but I have a doubt.

I was collecting all the skulls reported for the Javanese tigers in literature, and I think that is very weird that J. H. Mazák did not included the large male skull of 349 mm in his document. However, he mentions that used the data from V. Mazák, which do measured this skull.

My question to you is:
I know that you measured this specimen, here is the picture:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, I will like to know if the measurements reported by Mazák (1983) and Sody (1947) are accurate with your own. I see no reason to exclude this specimen.

Help me please.

From left to right: greatest total length - condylobasal length - zygomatic width - rostrum - pm4

Sody, H.J.V. (1949)                                                        349,00 - 303,00 - 246,00 - 105,00 - 35,00

Mazak, V. (1983)                                                             349,00 - 303,00 - 246,00 - 099,40 - 00,00

Broekhuijsen, P.G. (2005)                                           345,50 - 290,00 - 245,80 - 107,00 - 35,00

You know all about Sody, as I posted scans of his tables. I'm not sure when V. Mazak measured the skull, as there are 3 editions of his book. I have the third and last edition. There is, however, no question that Mazak measured the skull himself. Hoogerwerf, by the way, wrote the skull was 350,00 mm. in greatest total length when he found it in 1938.

I measured the skull more than once, because the results of my measurements were a bit different from those of Sody and Mazak. To be sure, I asked someone working in the Naturalis Museum to measure the skull as well. Similar results. How explain the difference in greatest total length and, especially, condylobasal length?

One is it is known skulls shrink a bit with age. The Hoogerwerf skull is from 1938. Two is I measured the condylobasal length in the way I explained before. I turned the skull upside down and then measured the distance between the front edge of the premaxillary bone (just behind the incisors) and the posterior edge of the condylae. I know others measure this distance with the skull placed on the table in a normal position (not turned upside down) and it could be this explains the difference. I don't know, because I never tried the other method. I did notice that the main difference between my measurements and those of others always is most outspoken in condylobasal length. My measurements nearly always are a bit (a few mm.) shorter. My advice is to use the measurements made by Sody and Mazak, as both were qualified and very experienced.

However. There is a difference between them as well. In Mazak's table, the maximum rostral width recorded for male skulls of P.t. sondaica was 99,4 mm. (I assume this is the rostral width of the Hoogerwerf skull, but I am not sure), whereas Sody wrote it was 105,00 mm. Very strange. My measurement was 107,00 mm. I again asked someone working for the Naturalis Museum to help out and he too recorded a distance of about 107 mm. (slightly less). It apparently depends on how the rostrum is measured. Nearly everyone seems to use a slightly different method. If it isn't the method, it is the way it is applied. Remember I took my time measuring skulls (30-60 minutes for each skull). I know others do it much faster.

Anyhow. The skull Hoogerwerf found is larger than all other Javan skulls. The upper skull without the mandibula (missing) was 1,315 kg. A skull of a wild male lion in the collection of the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, although longer (GTL 372,46 mm.), had a similar width (248,01 mm.). The upper skull was 1,350 kg., whereas the mandibula was 0,730 kg. My guess is the Hoogerwerf skull, when complete, would have exceeded the heaviest I weighed of this subspecies (almost 1,9 kg.), but it is just a guesstimate. It depends on the individual. I saw short and massive skulls and I saw long and tender skulls.

GuateGojira · 09-27-2015, 07:01 AM

Thanks @peter, it was really useful and I will follow your advice.

By the way, I believe too that skulls shrink with age. The large skull of a Bengal tiger with a size of 387 mm x 267 mm (GSL x ZW), measured by Sterndale in 1884 and presented to the Indian Museum in Calcutta, it was reported by Sclater (1891) with a size of 381 mm x 262 mm (15 x 10.3 inches).

However, other explanation could be that Sterndale measured the skull between two perpendiculars from tip to tip, while Sclater stated that the skull was measured from the premaxillae to the posterior end of the supraoccipital, probably using calipers like a norm in museums.

Any way, a difference of 5-6 mm was present. Like any biological thing, the decomposition, even at slightly level, is the norm.

This image of Rowland Ward shows how the big cat skulls are measured, showing that the silly claim of Warsaw that great cat skulls measurements are unreliable, is completely false.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Check that mandibles had nothing to do in the measurement of the GSL. By the way, the largest tiger skull actually measured by Rowland Ward in person (not those "Owner's measurements"), in this form, is a male specimen from Cooch Behar that measured 384 mm x 260 mm (Rowland Ward, 1914; 7th edition). I don't know if more recent editions had larger tiger skulls.

GuateGojira · 09-30-2015, 08:17 AM

@peter, I need your help, again. Like

I was reading in page No. 172 that Mazák, like me, believed that the Javanese tiger was as large as the South China tiger, based in the skull size. So if there is no problem, I will like to know if you could post the pages about the skull size, body size and weights of the South China tigers?

Besides, I will like to see the page 173 and 176, which are the complement for the Bali tiger. I am using all this data to reconstruct the size (for my comparison image) like the base, because there is so little data.

Finally, I don't want to sound harnessed, but if possible, could you put also the pages of the Caspian and the Indochinese tiger? I have not made the one of the Indochinese tiger so it will be perfect, and although the image of the Caspian tiger is already done, I will like to corroborate the data that Mazák found and presented.

Sorry for disturb you too much, but for tiger records, you are the best source.

For advance, thanks for any help.

GuateGojira · 10-01-2015, 12:18 AM

The size of the Sunda tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica):

After gathering all the data available about the size of this tiger subspecies, I made a comparison of the skull size (the most reliable of all, search my previous posts here) and get to the conclusion that the Sumatran and the Javanese tiger were of the same size (the largest specimens were from Java, although from a marginal difference). On the other hand, Bali tigers are portrayed as the dwarfs of the tiger world, however a skull comparison shows that they are not "so small" and that the smaller Sumatran and Javanese specimens are, in fact, smaller than the smallest Balinese tigers. Probably the dramatic difference is caused by the small sample size and the Balinese tigers were of the same size than the small-to-medium size Sumatran and Javanese tigers. Mazák (1983) stated that based on the skull size, Javanese tigers were probably of the same size of the South China tigers, which allows the possibility of some specimens reaching up to 180 cm in head-body "between pegs" and about 160 kg, if not a little more. Take in count that the average Bengal tiger skull measure 353.4 mm, which is slightly longer than the largest Sumatran and Javanese tigers skulls measured.

Here is the comparative image of this subspecies, following Wilting et al. (2015) which summarize the three island groups (Sumatra, Java and Bali) in one single subspecies (P. t. sondaica):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Most of the measurements available were from Sumatran tigers, so I decided not to mix them with those of the two only Javanese tigers and the one Balinese tiger available, measured in the flesh. The average skull figures came from the studies of J. H. Mazák and Yamaguchi, choosing those with the largest samples, and the range figures states the largest and smallest skulls reported overall.

For females of Java and Bali, there are no reliable measurements, as those reported were probably taken from skins, as Mazák stated. I decided to include the large Javanese tiger of 275 cm, because based in the largest skull, this size is completely plausible. However, as I used only secondary references for this specimen, I don't know if it was actually taken "over curves", so I put a sign of "?" in any case. The Gondol tiger (Bali) was a "large" specimen, based in the picture and the skull, but the skull-body ratio of 5.4 produce only a head-body of c.168 cm, which suggest that the measurements were taken "over curves". However, this is the only Balinese tiger, actually measured in the flesh, that came from a reliable source, so it most be included.

This image summarize the data available that I could get, and provide a good idea of the size of this subspecies.

Just one final thing. The known range of sizes of the Bali tiger using in Mazák (1981) and copy-pasted in all the books and the internet, were calculated based in skins measurements and did not represent real sizes taken "in the flesh", check this out, from the document of Mazák of 1976 "On the Bali tiger, Panthera tigris balica (Schwarz, 1912)":

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, using the smaller Balinese male tiger skull (295 mm) and the ratio of 5.4, it produce a head-body of c.159 cm, which suggest a total length of at least c.235 cm, which is larger than the smaller range calculated by Mazák. The problem in estimating sizes from skins is that some times, the skins are stretched to unreliable sizes, while in other cases they are shrink and cut when thy are mounted for exhibition, presenting underestimations of the real size (check the case of the Tsavo lions, which look like "big" dogs instead of lion sized specimens).

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?