The Java Tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica)

[tigerluver]

Extremely short on time, but I'll try to give some thoughts. You're on to something, Guate. 

On Javanese size, my opinion is that they were no smaller than the Sumatran form. Like you've stated, dimensions are as large if not greater. But there's one more significant aspect of the Javanese form I've found, they're the most robust bone-wise of species (mentioned the data here and there in the blog and our good old extinct felid discussion). So same dimensions plus greater robusticity equals greater body mass. 

I unfortunately have not been able to get my hands on data from the Bali form, so I can't tell you any info the bone robusticity. Takinga a quick glance at your chart, I noticed that a couple of mathematical corrections prove your point even better. Christiansen's isometric estimation of skull size underestimates small specimens while overestimating large specimens, and thus, it is highly likely that the specimens of those Bali skulls were heavier than what is shown on the chart. Furthermore, the Mazak database is so and so for weight estimation, as Amur's are proportionately the lightest. I will go off the assumption that Bali tigers were proportionately heavier as per the island tiger trend, thus again, the mass estimation as per the isometric equation and database is likely an underestimate. 

In sum, good catch. The lack of data may have given us a false sense of the Javan and Bali form's relative sizes. I conclude that the Javan form may have been larger than the Sumatran form. With not as much as confidence due to the lack of data, the Bali form may have approached the size of the Sumatran form and not been a miniature as currently thought. Reply