WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
White, Black & Golden Tigers
White, Black & Golden Tigers
|
White, Black & Golden Tigers
|
The Corbett footage is allegedly in the Nat. Geo. documentary "Man-Eaters of India" from 1984 I believe.
It isn't farfetched for white tigers to exist in the wild. I believe there are even reports from the 19th century of white tiger citings. The 20th century and modern gene pool is too small to use as evidence to discount the earlier claims.  (07-10-2014, 10:09 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Shouldn't we look at white tigers surviving in the wild the same way we would look at the claim of a 400kg cat?No, these are two different things. The 400 kg cats are exaggerations that born from the hunger of big game. On the other hand, the white tigers are more like a "magical" animal that very few people had saw, but that EXIST in reality. There is an old picture of Mugals hunting tigers and in it we can see two white tigers. However, other experts doubt that these are true white tigers, but that depend on the interpretation. There are a few reliable reports of white tigers in the wild. The female with cubs filmed by Jim Corbett is the best from my point of view. But there are others accounts, like a white tiger hunted in its early life. This was reported by Peter and he put the image, I am going to search it for you. So, there is no true evidence to say that white tigers are freak monsters created by man. In fact, the studies that I have showed before are evidence that there is no need of inbreeding to create this tiger type. The inbreeding method born from the ignorance of man, only that. I have never denied the fact that all white tiger populations are highly inbreed, however this is not excuses to say that they are not pure. In fact, if the Indian white tigers are inbreed, they are only between other Indian tigers. So inbreed or not, they are pure, just like the South China tigers, which are even more severely inbreed but they are still "pure". Finally, I have not say that Varty allowed "canned hunt". Read my words again, I was sarcastic in my paragraph, the true account was that he allowed to a rich man dart his largest tiger, in a similar way than the old tiger hunts. The tiger itself was NOT killed, but the act itself and the way to obtain money is what don't convince me. 
Gaute, you cannot be "pure" when you're inbred. That is why deformities occur in inbred animals far more than non inbred ones. Its like Gir lions, we both have argued against them being "pure lions" because their questionable occurance in India. This is way worse, these white tigers all come from one tiger, thats it.
I never said the "white tigers are freak monsters created by man" I specifically stated that Mohan was wild caught, so obviously white tiger occur in the wild, wether they remain to adult is a completely different question. Mohan was a cub when he was taken, correct? I would really love to see these pics or vids if anybody can come across them. I would love to see a adult white tiger, im sure a white wild tiger is something to behold.
I think we are using the therm "pure" in different ways. I am using it to show that they are "Indian" tigers per se, that they have no other subspecies gene, which is correct. The Indian lineage have not Amur genes on it, while the American lineage do and for that, is useless for conservation.
You are using the therm "pure" to show genetic variance, and you are correct in the point that White tigers are worst than the Indian lions, specifically by the fact that the last ones came from several specimens and the white tigers came from one. However, this is not "purity" at all, this is genetic variance. The example of the South China tigers is better, because they came from seven or eight specimens, and they have interbreed some many times that now ALL the South China tigers are like genetic twins. They case is the most similar to the white tigers, however as they have not breed with other subspecies, they are "pure". So, that is my point, Indian white tigers are highly inbreed, yes, but they have not mixed with other subspecies, so they are pure (P. t. tigris) although lacks genetic variance (highly inbreed). Ask Peter about the hunted white tiger, I have not found it in my computer yet. Now, about the white tigress and her cubs, filmed by Jim Corbett, I have not found the video but I do have the pictures from the book. I will post them soon. (07-11-2014, 07:30 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I think we are using the therm "pure" in different ways. I am using it to show that they are "Indian" tigers per se, that they have no other subspecies gene, which is correct. The Indian lineage have not Amur genes on it, while the American lineage do and for that, is useless for conservation. The only thing that I disagree with is that you are under the assumption that every single white tiger is mixed in the states. The thing is, you cannot prove that, nobody can, and the fact that pure bred bengal tigers where brought to the states, also raise possible questions. I see what youre saying about our interpretations of "pure" being different. I believe in "pure" meaning that nature had everything to do with it. The minute a human being puts his hands on something, that is forever changed or unpure. The existance of white tigers in nature would occur through unbelievably huge odds and then that animal surviving till adulthood would be even more astronomical. These animals may be "bengals" but they are still man made, inbred, deformed bengals. I just don't conisider them as a pure species.
White tigers are not deformed, or astronomically rare. White tigers are a natural gene that most be conserve and we have not the right to simply discard them as an "unnatural" creature.
In the pass, the Bengal population was much larger than in the present, so the chances to see a white tiger were larger, at least 1 in 1,000 specimens, which is good; sadly in the present, the gene is extinct in wild because humans destroy it, not the nature. The "deformed" characteristic was caused by humans and the inbreeding, not by the gene itself (take a look on the thesis that I provided). Besides, the Indian white tigers, if they breed with normal orange Bengals, it will be possible to produce white tigers without inbreeding, like the thesis that I have show states. On the "pure" issue, white tigers in the present are still Bengal tigers, they have the Indian genes and then, they are pure. If we follow your logic, the South China tigers are no longer pure and most be discarded to, which I am not agree. Those genes, the South China one and the white one, are natural and should be conserve. There are new genetic methods that can be used in order to return the "purity" of this varieties. By the way, I will not consider the white tiger a different species, but only a variation of the Bengal population. Finally, about the white tigers in America, you are right, I can't prove that ALL are Amur-Bengal mix, but take in count the history of the breeding of this animals in American, it is so bad that I can state that probably 90%, at least, of the American white tigers are already a mix! From my point of view, only those in India are viable for the recovery of the white gene, although with extreme hard work.
White tigers are all crosseyed. Even if they don't show it, all of them have genetic eye difformities, and usually cleft lips etc..
There is no way to bred a single indian white tiger and have it not be inbred. There is no "natural way". The only way it could ever happen now is if we found two different wild tigers that where from different regions and bred them. The only way we could ever "conserve" the gene, is to let it occur naturally in the wild and then LEAVE IT ALONE. We are too quick to take these natural phenomenoms out of their natural habitat to "study" them. If it occurs and sticks, then we must let it happen. But up until now, it has never occured and stuck. From what I have seen, of course. If those images exist of the wild mother, then I will change my view of white tigers being able to grow to adulthood in the wild. The white gene most very likely does still exist in the wild, the reason its rare is becasue both cats must carry it which makes the chances of them finding eachother and not being related, very, very rare. I would definitely call white tigers bengals, IF we found them in the wild. In captivity I will throw them in with N. American Bengals, or other captive tigers in the states/europe. I definitely respect your stance on them, but I dont think we will agree on this one. (07-10-2014, 08:52 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Continuing with these, I have found the document about the genetic of the white tigers and other two documents that can help us to understand why this mutation happen and that prove that the white gene has nothing to do with deformities (this is a cause of inbreeding, not of the gene).Pckts, my friend, have you read this documents yet? All the defects that you describe came from the inbreeding, not the white gene. White tigers CAN be breed in a natural way, using modern techniques. They can and MOST be saved from extinction, but only the Indian specimens are viable, as they don't have the Amur genes, and are pure P. t. tigris yet. Not all white tigers have cross eyes, only some American specimens do, and even this, not all have this problem. There are natural ways to save the white Indian tiger, but we MOST help the nature and the thesis that I post above show the way. Modern genetic techniques can help us to develop breeding systems that will program selective breeding between unrelated white and orange tigers. This new scientific form of breeding will produce white tigers without birth defects and this same technique should be used to save the few South China tigers still alive (remember that ALL captive South China tigers came from only 6 or 7 specimens). I think that, at the end, we are agree that we are not agree, jejejeje  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Are you convinced now? Source: https://archive.org/details/maneatersofkumao029903mbp
Come on gaute, look at that photo.
haha If it was really a white tiger, no body would be able to tell. Very suspicious in its own right, is it not? Anyway, about Your first link states this "However, the genetic basis of this phenotype remains unknown." Your second link doesn't mention where the white tigers and orange tigers are from and again it also states nothing about white tigers surviving in the wild. It is also far to technical for me to interpret, you would most likely need to be a pretty well versed scientist to be able to comprehend those techincal terms. Third link is a thesis and not a scientifically accepted paper, correct? Either way, it states this again "Furthermore, the relationship between the genes associated with coat color and levels of inbreeding also remain unknown." As you can see, none of those links are relevent to wether white tigers survive in the wild and if white "bengals" in india are not with birth defects. The only way we could "conserve" a pure bred white bengal would be to capture and draw blood of many tigers, find ones with the white gene then bring them together, then hope that they will breed with eachother since we have no idea how two wild cats would act from different areas, then hope that they still would have the luck to have a white tiger cub, then that cub would be the first of its kind to make it to adulthood without or protection, unless you say we are going to put these cats in captivity for the rest of their life? As you can see, that is the furthest thing from "conservation", that is human beings playing god and completely over stepping their boundries. I can't believe that you would think that, I am probably misinterpretting your plans to conserve a white bengal. Bengals in india or america still have one father. Go back far enough, they are all sons and daughters of Mohan. So they are all inbred. That is undeniable, correct? I also enjoy discussing this topic with you, you are by far one of my favorite posters to read, your extremely educated and explain in a very easy to understand way. Thanks for the continued debate
Sorry for the quality of the picture, but is the only digital version of this book in the web. If you want a better version, you can go to your local library and search "Man eaters of Kumaon" the first and most famous book of Jim Corbett. He, personally, took that pictures and the famous video (that I am unable to found yet), but if Jim Corbett say that this is a white tigress, then IT IS a white tigress. If you don't believe in me, believe in Jim Corbett.
About the genes, you only read the thesis (which I have not read yet), but why you don't read the first document, there is clearly explained that the white gene is natural and most be conserved. Man have played been God many times, South China tigers are still the best example. However, even if the modern white tigers have only one father, the gene itself can be saved if those tigers would be breed with other orange tigers, managing the gene genetically. I am going deeper in a further post, but first I need to read completely the chapters of "Tigers of the World" in order to explain my self better. The white gene was present in the wild and many wild white tigers existed, it is our responsibility to save this particular and beautiful variety, after all, humans killed the 90% of the wild Bengal tigers, and with that, the possibility of a natural white tiger. This is not like trying to bring back a mammoth or something like that, this is to conserve a natural wonderful that we manage to destroy in a century. It sounds poetic, but is what I believe. (07-13-2014, 09:19 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Sorry for the quality of the picture, but is the only digital version of this book in the web. If you want a better version, you can go to your local library and search "Man eaters of Kumaon" the first and most famous book of Jim Corbett. He, personally, took that pictures and the famous video (that I am unable to found yet), but if Jim Corbett say that this is a white tigress, then IT IS a white tigress. If you don't believe in me, believe in Jim Corbett. Gaute, you're reasonable. You have seen the original picutre, correct? If it is not a color image that looks natural, then there is something that could be slightly fishy. I believe Corbett as much as I believe any other Big cat expert or Biologist. But all people have alterior motives from time to time, I am not saying that is the case for corbett. But imagine the attention one would get for the claim of discovering the only white tiger alive. Just sayen, its something to think about. I read the first article, but it doesn't say anything about white tigers surviving in the wild and its still unsure if the white gene contributes to the birth defects or not. I guess you and I have different interpretations of "conserve" I believe the only way to conserve any species is for us to let it be. We need to protect animals from us, simple as that. Get out of their way, stop taking all their land, leave them be. If the white gene existed long ago, it will and does still exist now. If its meant to occur, it will because evolution only keeps something that is a benefit.
I agree with Guate that we should save the white gene. Maybe outbreeding these specimens for a generation or two then breeding heterozygous regular tigers could produce healthier white specimens. Rinse and repeat.
(07-13-2014, 09:27 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Gaute, you're reasonable. You have seen the original picutre, correct?You are assuming things that don't exist Pckts, the picture is real, the author is highly reliable, but now you think that all this is fishy??? This is not been reasonable, this is denying evidence. Why you can't believe that there were wild white tigers in the past? There is direct evidence of this animals and they not only existed, but they also breed in the wild. Jim Cobertt is the best example and like I said before, Peter show a picture of a subadult white tigers hunted in the wild, with measurements and all the thing. Jim Corbett don't need this type of publicity, he was one of the first naturalist that actually saw a tiger without a gun in its hands. It is like to say that Dr Sunquist have saw a white tiger, I will surely believe in him too. The first article mention cases of wild white tigers hunted in the past and even state that there are observations of this specimens since the year 1500. What document are you reading??? Besides, check the conclusion: "Mapping the white mutation in the tiger to the A477V substitution in the transporter protein SLC45A2 proves the efficiency of using pedigree-based GWAS followed by WGS to identify causative genes and mutations based upon next-generation RAD-seq in an exotic species. For the variety of charismatic nonmodel organisms carrying unique or significant phenotypes that are controlled by single genes, this approach promises to be a simple, efficient, and cost-effective means of gene and mutation mapping. Because the SLC45A2 A477V substitution affects the white tiger’s pigmentation only, without causing severe physiological defects, we argue that the white tiger morph is a naturally occurring and viable feature of genetic diversity in tigers." Did you see? It is possible to save the white gene without all the birth complications caused by the inbreeding, not the white gene itself. Finally, your idea of conservation is an utopia in modern times. We can't just let go nature to do its business because the damage done is too great. At this point, human intervention is necessary to recover the species, directly or indirectly. The white gene is extinct in the wild not because the evolution do it, but it was the human intervention. So, it is the responsibility of the humans to restore it to the wild. Besides, there was a genetic balance in the past, that was destroyed by the overkill, so this balance can and most be restored via new genetic advances and biotechnology. This is possible and most be used in this case. (07-14-2014, 08:38 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:(07-13-2014, 09:27 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Gaute, you're reasonable. You have seen the original picutre, correct?You are assuming things that don't exist Pckts, the picture is real, the author is highly reliable, but now you think that all this is fishy??? This is not been reasonable, this is denying evidence. Why you can't believe that there were wild white tigers in the past? There is direct evidence of this animals and they not only existed, but they also breed in the wild. Jim Cobertt is the best example and like I said before, Peter show a picture of a subadult white tigers hunted in the wild, with measurements and all the thing. Jim Corbett don't need this type of publicity, he was one of the first naturalist that actually saw a tiger without a gun in its hands. It is like to say that Dr Sunquist have saw a white tiger, I will surely believe in him too. Come on Gaute, I am denying nothing. I expect the same out of any claim. I'm sorry, but you said there are images of this tiger, clearer ones, but I have only seen this blurry, black n white image which you can barely make out anything, let a lone a tiger or even the color of the tiger. I will never blindly believe anything without seeing the data or proof behind it. Thats because of this place and places like it. If peter has a image of a white tiger in the wild, I will gladly accept it. I will admit that white tigers live till adulthood etc.. I have never once said the white tiger doesn't occur in the wild, I have seen no proof of them surviving till adulthood. If you showed me where sunquist said he saw adult white tigers, I would definitely take that into account and add it to the list with Corbett. Once again, they said it is still Unknown how it affects deformities. That is from all 3. But if you are talking about gene manipulation used to artificially create "natural white tigers", that is not right. That is man playing god. You don't do that, there is far to many other things that people can use science for that is actually benefiting all the animals in the forrest, jungles, plains etc... The idea of Gene manipulation in itself, is unnatural. The word "manipulation" means "to manage or influence skillfully" That is not Natural which means "existing in or caused by nature" These two words live on different sides of the map. Once again, in regards to your claim of the "white gene" being "extinct" in the wild. There is absolutely, possitively No way, that anybody, anyone in the world, expert or ammateur has any idea if thats true. There are 1000s of tigers that have never been studied, had blood drawn, etc... Anybody who would try and say that, is only trying to make an excuse for selectively breeding white tigers to gain financial reward. Wether for more studying, showing to people, etc... Its definitely the furthest thing from "conservation". Lastly, what makes a white tiger need more help than a orange tiger or black tiger, etc.. All tigers, all need protection, all need attention to them and their habbitat. The only human intervention these animals need, is humans intervening with other humans. Stop logging, stop building monstroustaties that are vacant and wasting money, stop mining everywhere for superficial bs, stop using up all the oil etc.... None of these issues have anything to do with tigers or any other animal. They will conserve themselves if we just stop destroying the world. They where here long before us and will be here long after us. Hopefully, if we don't destroy everything first. But even if we did, life will find a way, if a way is to be found.
Pckts, I disagree with your view point to let the white genes just disappear when saving them with my preposition won't hurt. We killed off the genes, we better fix it, natural or not.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |