Talk:Tiger/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Maneaters

i just want to show my friends this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger4951 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)



I do not have much information or sources regarding the champawat Tigress, she is the most deadly solitary man-eater on earth. And we need other information regarding other tigers maneaters as well, the lion section has it, i think the tiger section must have it too. Can anyone please help and post information regarding tigers as man-eaters? China's Tiger 04:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)hahaha All right, i just completed the Man-eating section by myself. If there is anything else to add, please tell me. China's Tiger 04:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Paper tigers - pathetic census

Tiger is endangered in general, and the Indochinese tiger is critically endangered. According to outdated Census, their “current” number is 1200 -1800, which is none but a bitter joke. Face it: the census says there are roughly 200 tigers in Vietnam, but in Vietnam, the last sighting of tiger was about 15 years ago, in early 1990s. No tiger has ever been seen in the wild since then, nor can their track be found. According to Professor Vo Quy, leading VietNam wildlife conservationist of the National university, there are only about 10 - 15 Indochinese tigers in VietNam, occurring in scattered forests, meaning they are isolated and so, doomed to extinct unless some serious conservation project is carried out to protect the remmant tigers and extend its habitat, which is heavily and gradually destroyed to give land for agricultural fields. In Laos, the very same situation occurs, with hardly any tiger has been observed in the wild for many years. Cambodia used to have about 400 tigers, but only in five years between 1998 -2003, more than 200 tigers have been poached, for the value of a dead tiger is too high, and the people in tiger regions are so poor, they have to resort to poaching to feed their families, to say nothing about organized poaching teams. Till now, there is no strict enforcement in place in these countries, and high ranking officials are often bribed to allow for poaching. In Myanmar, the tiger, both Bengal and Indochinese, have been virtually eradicated by poachers and militants, so now, they keep the tiger trade going on by…importing tigers from neighboring countries, namely India, Cambodia, Bhutan, Nepal, Thailand. If this this trend goes on, in only 4-5 years from now, the Indochinese tiger will simply be a distant memory. In Malaysia peninsular, about 600 tigers remain, but again, that’s from the census, just like they say there are about 400 sumatran wild tigers remaining in Indonesia. Another exaggeration! If you have been to Sumatra, u know the situation. Government’s deliberate ignorance of tiger poaching; illegal logging that reduces forest area; human’s animosity toward tigers due to killing livestocks and men, so they kill tigers by every means they can think of: trapping, poisoning, shooting etc; all of that, make the tiger number steadily decline. In a new tiger fact sheet published on the wwf global web site, it reads: “A more recent TRAFFIC report published in 2004 revealed that at least 50 Sumatran tigers were poached per year between 1998 and 2002”. That’s it, that’s poaching alone! Something the report doesn't say is once a mother tiger dies, all of her cubs will reunite her very soon, they have no chance on their own. The Sumatran tigers, numbering at best 100 in the wild now, will die a painful death, just like the Indochinese, if we just sit here and listen to pathetic and exaggerated tiger census. If you have read this book, “Of tiger and men”, Valmik Thapar, an Indian tiger experts, has the same view about the tiger. He says, there are at best 700-800 matured tigers in India, as opposed to about 1800-2000 breeding individuals in the census, 100 tigers in Thailand(opposed to 400-500), and a total of 2000 tigers in the world now. So sorry that I have to agree. Not enough habitats exist anymore in Southeast Asia to support that unusually high no of census tigers, not anymore, to say nothing of constant poaching pressure from time to time. Census tends to give a higher number of paper tigers than the real ones. Why? First, they are largely based on pugmark identification, which often give a higher number than the real one. Second, if they don’t do so, it’s just like admitting their failure to save the tigers. It’s so obvious that once the Indochinese tigers go extinct, it will be the Bengal tiger that receives the death sentence. In fact, it is already starting now, with the Bengal tigers being poached and exported to Myanmar, where they will be exported to the rest of the world, especially Japan, China, including Taiwan, taipei and Hong kong. According to the tiger newsletter I got, also from the wwf global website panda.org, last updated feb 2005: “In recent months there have been several seizures of tiger skins and parts by Indian authorities. WWF was instrumental in aiding some of these seizures. However, at the same time, we learn from news reports that two important Tiger Reserves in India, Sariska and Ranthambore, have lost most of their tigers".

If you don’t belive what I have said above, read this book:

BLACK MARKET: Inside the endangered species trade in Asia.

It just published in 2005, and therefore, would be available now. I highly recommended this one, as it will give you factual accounts of the endangered species trade in the world then, now and tomorrow if we just sit here and believe these animals will somehow be rescued.Once u read it, u will see that the outlook is not as bright as the some whitepapers tell you. In fact, it may be a little too dark. I always knew these animals are brutally treated by human, but I couldn’t imagine it was that brutal until I read this book.

One last thing I want to note: How cruely the tiger are treated, that very same way for all other endangered species, be it asian elephants, rhinos, gaur, pangolin, banteng… Please keep that in mind when you read these lines. So if we are animal lovers and care about the existence and thrive of these magnificent animals, act now to save these species. We together, will make a difference. The easiest yet the most effective thing we can do is to convince people surrounding us to stop using wildlife products. That way, we can stop the demand for wildlife products, and so, the supply.

Tiger is indeed dwindling. "While Bhutan and Russia have also reported a stable tiger population, the species is fast dwindling in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Laos."

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=241924

India is no exception. 4500 is a joke, Sariska and ranthambore are two great examples of theory and reality

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.146.21 (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

People, please have a look at this article, I think this is a serious issue:

http://www.wickedwildlifefund.com/abuse.html

Some point made by the article is obvious. The allowance of elephant hunting, and even white rhino trophy hunting in Africa, despite its terribly low population: ~10000. I think the way WWF conducts business is indeed shady, and the tiger is likely to suffer the same fate. Think about it, all great conservations of the 20th century: the indian rhino, the white rhino, the bison, they are all well done before WWF even exists. WWF conservation projects, till now, have achieved moderate outcome, the tiger and elephants are two BIG examples.

Is there a point to this editorial? Should it be deleted as not relevant to the tiger article? Lighthope 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is but I think it should be pointed out that a bad census is still better then a wild guess which is all we can get from this tirade. While I don't doubt that there are exaggerations from certain states on their tiger-numbers, indeed I've considered the South Chinese to be extinct in the wild for years now barring any hard evidence of tigers and of how Siberians fared when they crossed the border from Russia, I think we should leave speculation of these things aside in wiki. As for comments on WWF it should be noted that there are alternative organizations to the WWF, my personal favorite being the WCS which is responsible for the highly successful Siberian Tiger Project. I think it would be constructive to note where tigers are being protected and who's responsible for a better understanding of the facts behind tiger conservation today. -Amur_Tiger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.112.161 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

tigers

'''do they hunt in grougs.''' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.1.1 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

In what?! Dora Nichov 00:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was "in grouPs". 68.101.123.219 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Very good eyesight, poor sense of smell Jim Corbett notes that while tigers have excellent eyesight even at night, they do not have a good sense of smell. Quite the opposite of bears. In 'Temple Tiger', Corbett narrates a fight between a tiger and a full grown Himalayan bear.

vandalism

The Lion, according to the Lion Page, is the second largest cat behind the Tiger. The Tiger, according to the Tiger Page, is the second largest of the cats - at least in the introduction paragraph. The next paragraph says its the largest.  ??

People keep vandalizing the page for they think lion is the most powerful big cat! What a nonsense! First, tiger is much bigger than lion, average or largest. Second, even a 120 kg male sumatran tiger will take down a 200 kg male lion in 5 - 10 minutes. Strongest in what way? In one way: strong in number.

The Lion is the second largest cat found in the wild. The Tiger is the largest. The Liger, which is very, very rarely found in the wild but which does exist in captivity in several places, is larger than either. The Lion page could be changed to reflect this. The second paragraph of the Tiger page says it is the largest feline in the wild, so it is accurate.
It doesn't matter which is stronger between the Lion and the Tiger. It is simply not the sort of thing that you put in an encyclopedia article. It is childish nonsense. The Elephant article doesn't mention that the Elephant is the "most powerful" land animal - we just note that it is the heaviest, because that is all that need be mentioned. - Atarr 18:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point made by Atarr above. I hope all can agree on avoiding such assessments as 'most powerful cat'. Let's just stick to the facts; weight, length, prey items.


Further vandalism. semi protect.ScMeGr 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is getting vandalised every day. Please can someone who knows how to take action, take action. ScMeGr 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Childish nonsense, I don't think so. A lot of books about mammals say the same, including the New encyc. of mammal, 2nd edn by Oxford. And why put lion here? I can see your point then: When u see the word most powerful, you think straightaway of lion and tiger, that's nonsense, not the word powerful. Who the heck gives a damn about lion or whatever? The debate about lion and tiger is a childish stuff, not this. Read the arhive talk page, it has been explained why tiger is the most powerful, in terms of everything you would think of. By the way, the vandalism, I think will be endless until tiger haters satisfy with the contents, and they never will.

How utterly sad. This whole argument about which is bigger a Lion or a Tiger is exactly why Wikipedia isn't and never will be a reliable information source. Grow up, you babies. A sad day in Wikipedia history indeed. --206.223.180.110 07:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's put a tiger in our tanks, sir! I hate poomers and koogers! Lions are kings, tigers are just Tiggers! --86.29.248.150 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What are Koogers and Poomers?--Lubov-Sofia 13:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There faked, unlike Ligers and Tions! --Nadezda-Tatiania 14:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ligars and Tions are in fact real creachers.--86.29.247.166 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Several years ago, I was reading a a bunch of books by one of these people who study tigers for a production I was working on. Because it was so long ago, I don't recall the name, but he was a hunter/conservationist like Jim Corbett. (Might actually have been him, but I won't stick my neck out and say that for certain.) Anyway, the author had commented about lions and tigers and which was the most powerful. What he said was basically this: Tigers are stronger than lions. Lion lovers, get over it. However, lions have a protective mane, making it difficult for a tiger to get in a killing choke-hold. Therefore in a fight a lion has the advantage over a tiger. Tiger lovers, get over it. The author didn't comment about fights between a tigress and a lioness, however, so that I guess is still up to debate. Lighthope 21:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

O.K., there equils.--Chikorado 02:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Who wins in a fight is irrelevant to which is the larger creature so please tiger-lovers, refrain from dragging that into the conversation and lion-lovers, stop vandalizing. Since power is a direct product of muscle mass tigers can be said to have more strength in them then the lighter lions regardless of whether that muscle mass is distributed in a way that give them an advantage in a fight.

Amur_Tiger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.112.161 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

infobox typo

The word 'pink' appears incorrectly at the bottom of the infobox. This could probably be quickly repaired by someone who isn't afraid of breaking the infobox. 69.181.181.156 05:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Liger

Removed this from the intro: (pointy brackets removed)

(other than the captively-crossbred "liger")
("liger" reference is not irrelevant unless you are making it clear that the Tiger is only the largest feline species found in the wild.)

Since the intro does indeed say that "the tiger is the largest feline species in the world", we don't need the Liger to come in yet. And, of course, the liger isn't a species. Totnesmartin 18:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, a liger is a species. Ligers are capable of mating and producing fertile offspring. They're not mules. More technically, if you're trying to argue that a Liger is not a species because it does not have a distinct breeding population, then you are using one particular definition of what a species is to make Ligers a non-factor. This strikes me as a sort of sophistry to get around the fact that Ligers are bigger than Tigers.
If you say "Tigers are the biggest feline species", most readers will assume this means that the biggest cats in the world are Tigers. As this is not the case, it seems intellectually dishonest to me to say that without qualification. This is an article that gets a lot of traffic and has a lot of casual readers. The technical meaning of what a species is is not on most reader's minds when they read that line. - Atarr 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ligers aren't a species by the dictionary.com definition it must fufill the following. "2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." It cannot do so becaue it can't even breed with it's own species as the males are infertile and as such it's impossible to create a breeding population. The fact that the females end up fertile hardly helps their case as any occurence of this in the wild would inevitably result in the liger being re-integrated into either the lion population or the tiger population. Your throwing claims of sophistry seems more like an attempt to disguise the fact that Ligers aren't a species which they clearly fail to be.

Ligers aren't species indeed! No true zoologist will ever say it is. They are hybrids! And even hybrids of two endangered species, pure tigers (which is a true species) are needed to increase their population, not the liger hybrids which polute their gene pool. Peter Maas\talk 10:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Tigers And Elephants Error

What idiot wrote in this: "Adult elephants are too dangerous to tigers to serve as common prey, but conflicts between tuskers and tigers sometimes take place, which often end up with the tuskers being backed off by the big cat." ??? Tigers DO NOT back off elephants! No more than lions back off elephants. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It needs to be removed all together. The elephant is far too much for ANY cat. Dumb Tiger fanboys.

Calm down, folk. Tigers do not back off elephant, true! They KILL them:

http://onlypunjab.com/fullstory2k5-insight-news-status-29-newsID-6008.html

But, look at this! Unbelievable!

http://www.resourceshimalaya.org/contemporary_issues/india/tiger_kills_man_injures_elephant.htm

4 elephants fighting alongside fail to bring down a Northern Indian tiger. Yes, 4 against 1, without having the tiger dead, and 1 elephant is even badly wounded, despite outnumbering the cat. Unimaginable!

Please, stop comparing lions to tigers. We don't say: a lion, we say: Lions. But for tiger, it's: a tiger. A whole lion pride is always needed to kill cape buffalo. Yet, a cape buffalo is far cry from the Asian wild buffalo:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KG7tgRN2UNc

and the gaur, the king of all wild ox:

(link removed ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Had i not wached the videos, I couldn't believe the african bovine is so pathetic compread to the 2 magnificient asian cousins. And yet, it takes lions to kill the cape, but a single tiger has been known to kill bull buffalo and gaur, though rare. The only reason why there are more videos of lion hunting is because the NG guys spend most of their time making lions video. For years, I long for some asian big 5: gaur, water buffalo, asian rhinos,elephant, tiger documentaries, but every time I open NG channel, it's the same old story of African savannah. By doing this, the NG guys INDIRECTLY HELP PUT the asian Big 5 TO EXTINCTION! Why? How can we protect these species when most of the people DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE? Ask someone around you if they know what a gaur, indian rhino, or banteng is?

There is plenty of Video of the African Big Five because they live on nice and easy to film wide open savanha, where the film makers can find their subjects easily each morning. A lack of Indian Big Five and Tiger footage simply because they a bugger to film in thick vegetation whether temperate forest or tropical jungle it could take the film makers a month to find their subject and in a blink of an eye it could be gone again! Same reason you rarely ever see video footage of Jaguars, Clouded Leopard and the like! They are too hard to find so they just stick to the easy open planes of Africa! P.S. what does it matter which is the strongest, Lion or Tiger! They are both incredible creatures and should be enjoyed and protected for themselves not because of some subjective view of one being better in some way than the other! If you prefer Lions to Tigers than thats up to you but it has no bearing or relervance to the article! ROBERTY951 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.44.199 (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, a video of a guar... BFD! Where is the photo/video evidence of Tiges actually killing them? This is all internet nonsense that people make up. There is no proof!

Afew cases have apperently been reported, where tigers killed even adult elephant bulls. One case from Kumaon is reported by Smythies (published in Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 1940) and confirmed by Corbett, where two tigers killed an adult elephant bull with 55 kg tuskers in a three hours fight. Smythies alo mentioned here 9 other cases of heavy tiger attacks on elephants. (Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983. Westarp Wissenschaften Hohenwarsleben, 2004 ISBN 3 894327596. Page 78)--Altaileopard 11:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Medicine

The section about Chinese medicine is informative but the wording should be revised. As it stands now, it implies that Chinese people in general still have these beliefs, which is far from the truth. Practically no one in that country takes any of these tiger "recipes" seriously anymore. What is being described in that section are old traditions and beliefs, not current ones. No contemporary Chinese person, except for the extremely excentric or greedy, would dream of killing a tiger or using any of their products. The vast, vast majority of mainland Chinese people frown on the idea of having tigers killed. Further, the sentence in China for anyone found guilty of killing tigers and/or dealing on tiger products is either death or a very long prison term. The section needs attention.

Tiger's roar has the power to paralyze listeners!!!

I think it would be good to add this info. I dont know how accurate it is! I am new to wiki so I cant edit the tiger page.


Elizabeth von Muggenthaler is a bioacoustician from the Fauna Communications Research Institute in North Carolina. Bioacoustics studies animal behavior by analyzing the volume, pitch, frequency, and duration of the animal's sounds.

Von Muggenthaler believes that a tiger's roar has the power to paralyze listeners, including prey animals, and even human trainers. "When a tiger roars-the sound will rattle and paralyze you," she says. "Although untested, we suspect that this is caused by the low frequencies and loudness of the sound." Certainly, anyone who has heard the spine-tingling roar of a tiger in a manmade zoo den can attest to the intimidating result.

The bioacoustician and her colleagues have recorded the growls, chuffs, hisses, and roars of 24 tigers in hopes of learning more about their behavior, with the ultimate goal of protecting them from extinction.

http://cats.about.com/b/a/032702.htm

ArthurHerbetFonzarelli 07:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


You say tiger roar is intimidating. I have heard tiger roar many times in the zoo, it is so weak and funny that I can only laugh instead of being intimidated. Tiger roar is like the roar of a buffalo, it is not intimidating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.58.115.25 (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

tiger: extinction threats

This segment should have more details on the critically endangered status of the tiger in India, home to the world's largest wild population. The following paras can complete the section (sources listed below):

In January 2005, The Indian Express broke the news that India's Sariska tiger reserve had lost all its tigers.1 After initial denials, the government confirmed the news in March 2005 when India's Central Bureau of Invstigation submitted their probe report, citing rampant poaching.(2)(3) In the following months, disturbing news were reported from tiger reserves across the country. In November 2005, an investigation by The Indian Express revealed how a group of poachers killed 22 tigers in Ranthambhore tiger reserve.4 Going by an interim report of the Wildlife Institute of India released in May 2007, the surviving tiger population in the country may not cross the 2000-mark.5 Before this report, official figures claimed more than 3700 wild tigers in India.

1http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/archive_full_story.php?content_id=63280 2http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/archive_full_story.php?content_id=66639 3http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1064958.cms 4http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/archive_full_story.php?content_id=82342 5http://www.indianexpress.com/story/31720.html


122.162.91.230 21:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hav a look at this tiger fact sheet:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/tiger_factsheet2007w.pdf

"In India, an average of 22 cases of tiger poaching per year recorded between 1994 and 1999. A more recent TRAFFIC report published in 2004 revealed that at least 50 Sumatran tigers were poached per year between 1998 and 2002 to supply Indonesian and international markets for tiger skins and body parts".

Wild Sumatra tigers already have no hope, and India has been losing its tigers faster than people think. Even when it has the largest tiger population, it is a fragmented populations, with hardly any reserve having more than 80 tigers, save for Sunderban. That's why their chance for survival is less than that of the Siberian tiger, to be frank. Genetic diverisity is low, let alone killing and other threats. Poaching can easily wipe out a reserve's entire population without any chance of recovery, due to habitat fragmentation. Then it moves to the next reserve, the cycle continues. Siberian tigers can recover from such attacks, because they have a big unscattered number of tigers, but not the Bengal tiger. And don't forget, when a tigress is killed, all its cubs will die too, so the number multiplies. So if you think India has 3000 tigers, so its tigers have the biggest chance of prosperity, you're wrong. In the long run, if there's one tiger subspecies left on earth, it's destined to be the Siberian tigers.

Request for changing protected page

{{Editprotected}}I would like to add a link to http://www.tijgeritorium.net/, because it has a lot of information about these beautiful animals.

I've disabled the editprotected request. This article is only semi-protected, so anyone with this page on their watchlist will see the request. Or, if you prefer, you can create an account and wait a couple of days in order to edit the page yourself. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of factual errors on that webpage. Needs some cleaning up first. Lighthope 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

there needs to be a change made as the tasmanian tiger is not listed in the "extinct" section. as it is locked i have no way to edit this mistake. please fix.

Regards (211.30.182.174 08:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Gums

Obviously this is trivial, but does anyone know for what reason a tiger's gums are white when healthy? I know that they turn blue-white if they are not well but not why they are white to begin with. In the most sincere manner, -A Sprig of Fig & a lock of holly 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar?

I see Myanmar was reverted to Burma by Local yokel. Since Burma changed its name to Myanmar, I think it makes more sense to use the new name. Even in Wiki Burma defaults to the Myanmar page. Other countries have changed their names, like Ceylon to Sri Lanka, and the new name should replace the old one. I'll change it unless someone has a good argument not to. Bob98133 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiger population

The article says the tiger population today has dwindled to 2,500. But I found atleast one other source which claims a minimum headcount of 5,000 to a maximum headcount of 7,500 tigers today. [1] Anwar 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the article says, there are not more than 2500 breeding individulas. --Altaileopard 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Conservation of Tigers

                      Conservation of Tigers  by Siddharth the zoologist


Once tigers ranged from Java, Bali, southern Asia, eastern Turkey, to the eastern shores
of Asia on the Okhotsk Sea, to the island of Sumatra, and to the west of India. Today,
tigers are not found west of India or on the islands of Java and Bali. The remaining
tigers are in China, Southern Asia, and Russia's Far East; these are mostly isolated
habitats, and tigers are greatly reduced in numbers. The main predator of the tiger is
humankind. They have been trapped, poisoned and hunted heavily by humans not only to
eliminate threats to livestock, but also for sport, trophies, skins, and sources of
traditional medical products. Superstition has surrounded tigers for centuries; their
body parts are used in Asian medicines. It is estimated that only 200 tigers survived in
Nepal and only 4,000 in India, up from 2,000 in the 1970s. In the 1990s, poaching has
escalated in China and Korea, in spite of the Chinese ban on tiger products in 1993. At
one point in the 1970s, tigers' numbers had dropped to 4,000 compared to 100,000 in the
early 1900s. Today, the world tiger population still only numbers about 5,000 to 7,000
animals. An intense effort is under way to save the endangered tigers. Unfortunately,
tigers are still illegally hunted for their fur, bones and other parts to supply markets
in China and Taiwan. Tigers have been hunted to near extinction by poachers, and all
subspecies have been declared endangered.


So please Help Save The Tiger. Do not buy Articles made of Tiger products. Only We CAN
SAVE THEM NOW

size

In the Section on Amur Tiger, the conversion from kg to pounds is wrong. 306kg does not come to 845lb.
Thanks, here is a good page for converting units.--Altaileopard 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
We should use only zoological, reliable, references in wikipedia. lists of hunting records for example, are no good sources. A skin of a tiger can be stretched easily for half a meter. And if you measure over the curves, you can pull the measuring tape into the skin to "elongate" a dead animal enormously. A hunter wants always a very big animal...
In: Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. (1983) ISBN 3 894327596 are used only good, confirmed data. Mazak writes that the longest siberian tiger measured 350 cm (J A N K O W S K I ) in total lenght "over the curves", what would be about 330-335 cm "between the pegs". (The wheigt was estimated to be arround 300 kg.) Even this tiger is not defintiely confirmed, but it is the largest tiger, for which autentic data exist. The maximum wheight for Indian tigers from credible sources is 570 lb (258,2kg). This animal was shot in the Terai Region. The heaviest siberian tiger, for which we have reliable sources weighed 306 kg and was from Bouglione Menagerie. The heaviest wild amur tiger, for which Mazak has confirmed, exact data, weighed 270 kg. Mazak writes: All weights, which say 340 kg or even 384 kg for the heaviest tigers are not conirmed!!!!! I will change the article in this way, cause the book is really a good reference. Walkers mammals of the world says the same.... I have also some quite good books, which say that tigers are heavier and even Mazak wrote in his early times, that hey can grow bigger, but all these data depend on unconfrimed narratives--Altaileopard 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

568 lb was by no means the heaviest recorded wild Bengal tiger. It was not even a large specimen, it was only 9ft 7" over curves and it was merely one of a few tigers weighed by J P Hewett in the short span of time that he had a weighing machine available, no more. needless to say, with this total length, it's just a very typical male bengal tiger, especially when you consider the fact that longest and heaviest Bengal are from the north. This moderate male is, at the very best an average northern bengal.

I think there is is a disaccord: The tiger with 9 ft 7 " was the largest tiger shot by B e r g (not H e w i t t!) and had a weight of 565 lb (256 kg). But that does not matter. Nearly 10 ft is quite large for a bengal tiger. The Bachelor of Powalgarh was 10 ft 7 " over curves. And I did not want to say, that there is no possibility for the existence of even larger bengal tigers than 570 lb (258 kg), but according to Mazak this is the heaviest, which is confirmed via reliable sources.--Altaileopard 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about old hunting records though, that's not the point since the reduction in the number of tigers is recent. I am talking about tigers weighed by scientists in recent years. Extremely small samples of bengal tigers (and tigresses) have routinely exceeded the heaviest Siberian found in recent( last 30 years). Read the "largest tiger" section for some Northern Bengal tiger figures. By 1999, 15 siberian tigress have been weighed by Siberian project members, none exceed 320 lbs. Dale, a big male of the project, weighed 400 lbs (Tigers in the snow). Easily the very first female in chitwan weighed by Dr. Sunquist was 350 lbs, and aout of only 2 male, young guy already 440 lbs, and the mature Sauraha tiger measures 10 feet 4 finches long (tiger moon). Don't forget that Bengal is more muscular than Siberian.

That is not important for the size of the tiger in generally.--Altaileopard 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Schaller mentions one of 705 pounds (Smythies, 1942) in his book: The deer and the tiger. Schaller, if you love tiger, you know him. This book is a credible source, just cos' it was publiched so long ago, and you didn't happen to read it, doesn't mean the record not exist.

I didn´t want to say, that all books, which contain larger sizes, than Mazak are not serious. One of my favourite books, mammals of the soviet union (Heptner) and Mazaks earlier books say that tigers can grow larger... But these data are not confirmed according to Mazak!! If we mention larger tigers in the article, we should add the precise reference and we have to write, that they are debatable.... And 705 lb=320 kg is actually not to far from the heaviest (676lb=306 kg), which is reliable confimed according to Mazak. Does Schaller write about a bengal or a siberian tiger here?

The heaviest wild tiger on record weighed 857 pounds. This weighed is confirmed by Dr Henry Setzer, curator or mammals at US museum in 1975, who told the public that the huge male was weighed on a scale at a sugar plantation by David Hasinger, when he lured this one out with a buffalo calf and then shot him in northwestern India:

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/1995/november/object_nov95.php

Sorry, but this is not like a credible reference to me.

Guinness also mentions this one.

This also not....--Altaileopard 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture of this male looks like a big northern tiger, no more. And if you looked at it from a distance in the wild, you may think: oh well, just another relatively large male, no big deal! That means tigers of this size are by no means one of a kind in the North, especially in Northeast India, and tigers as large or even larger than this one have also been shot or photographed in here then and now. A recent camera-trap survey in the kaziranga national park revealed some very large looking tigers, largest ever seen according to Dr Mel Sunquist. Given that the total length of this tiger is 3.3m, longer tigers have been found in north India and Myanmar. Tigers in northwest india and Nepal is smaller those from Assam, northeast.

The Bachelor of Powalgarh (10 ft 7") looks gigantic compared to Corbett on the image, that I know. And in the book of Mazak is an image of a giant siberian tiger of the Zoo Duisburg, called "Amur". his female (an adult siberian tigress) looks like a cub compared to him. This tiger was estimated to weigh 280-300 kg. And..... you can not estimate the size of a tiger via camera trapping. I took pictures of leopards with camera traps, but it is very difficult to say, which size they have .--Altaileopard 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Guiness mentioned the unreilable 384 kg, not this one. I wouldn't count on it, as much of their data come out of nowhere. "And..... you can not estimate the size of a tiger via camera trapping": I didn't estimate nothing. With no field experience, You cant estimate the weight, but easily you can judge the buid by lookig at photos. A siberian tiger looks much larger than a similar-weighed bengal due to its tubby body; the bengal is much more solid. That's why a huge-looking siberian only weighs 280 kg , even the 180kg wild male, nick named Dale looks like a 270 kg wild bengal tiger. The bachelor of Powalgarh is 3.23m over the curve, meaning about 3.1m btw the pegs. The Sauraha male captured by Dr. Mel Sunquist in "tiger moon" is also 3.1m straightline measure. This male also looks gigantic compared to the humans surrounding, he also has the largest girth size for tigers ever recorded: 140 cm, and his thick neck is 80cm in circumference. The other young male, tiger 102 is already 2.92m, 200 kg, equal that of the pitiful, so-called largest 258 kg measured by hewett. By the time he gets matured at 6 years old, he would match his weight. Tigress 101, the first female captured in Chitwan, measures 2.77m, 160 kg, tigress 103, captured as a subadult , already 2.61m, and his brother, tiger 104, also captured as a subadult at the same time, is much larger. All straightline measures. This confirms the average size of bengal tiger, or at least northern bengal tiger to be 2.9m for male, equal that of Hewett's shrimp ;-), and some 2.75m for female.

Wouldn't you take lightly the fact that 15 tigresses measured recently do not exceed 320 lbs, not even 1. And one male, considered good-sized by Siberian tiger project specialists, the one nicknamed Dale, weigh 400 lbs. They are all inferior compared to the 5 chitwan tigers I just mentioned. And these are the most recent, and hence most reliable data. This means as an average, Siberian tiger is terrible compared to northern Bengal tiger(Dr. Mel Sunquist considers the Bengal tiger, as a whole, larger than Siberian tiger, but nevermind).

The ref written by Mazak is misleading. He claims the largest Bengal ever known was the bachelor of Powalgarh, but that one is only the largest he knows, he doesn't even know of the Sauraha male measured around the year 1979. You say the measure given by the tiger sample in the Smithsonian is unreliable? But 3.35m can easily be measured by any measuring tape, unlike the unreliable, so-called 12 ton elephants in American museum. Likewise, 388 kg, or 857 lbs, is also a weight measurable by weighting machines, not like the immeasurable 12 tons. If this 1967 record is unreliable, easily the 3.5m siberian, taken as far as 1943, was even more doubtful. The max weight recorded for Siberian by Baudy was 306 kg in 1968, the same period, so speaking of reliability, they are the same. 306 kg makes perfect sense, given that good-sized(huge-looking) males like Dale measured recently is only 180 kg ( I dont recall any full-grown bengal weighing less than 220 kg), and none of the female exceed 320 lbs, or 145 kg. But given the small smaple of chitwan tigers, only 5, have such high profiles, with the Sauraha male at least as big as the the bachelor of Powalgarh and having the largest girth size recorded and a very thick neck, meaning it's so stocky, 3.35m, 388 kg is no nonsense. The 258 kg was since 1938. Schaller, in his classic: the deer and the tiger, mentioned one in Nepal, 1942 weighed 320 kg(705 lbs),and it looks more reliable than Hewett's of 1938. In 1967 and 1968, the 388 kg bengal and the 306 kg Siberian were weighted, they are also more recent than the hewett's record.

About the camera trapping, I would count on it, cos' Dr. Mel Sunquist has extensive field exp. with tigers, and he reviewed these images himself. Plus, pug marks of tigresses from Assam are always the largest of Bengal tigers. He is well aware of the Ullas karanth's Nagarahole huge tigers as well, yet he concluded the Kaziranga being the hugest.

Btw, i read the 1938 book written By Hewett. he weighed the 258 kg tiger, among some others. perhaps Berg shot one of similar size and weight, and when did he shot him? Were you talking about the book: Wild cats of the world, 1975, GuggisBerg being the author?

The book: big cat: Kingdom if might is definitely a great ref. of big cats, not some two-bit children bed-time. It has the best coverage on ecology and physical characteristics of lions, leopards, puma, clouded leopard and snow leopard I've seen to date, and one of the best about tiger. Much of the inf. is also unique to this book,like the chapters of snow and clouded leopards, as well as recorded size of big cats. It has been edited by reviewed by big cat authorities such as Mel Sunquist, John Seidensticker, and Peter jackson, author of Endangered species:Tigers, among other. Combined with the author's 20 year experience of observing big cats, this one is quite valuable. He put together the recorded weight for tigers from various good sources, for ex: The 705 lbs Nepalese male is from The deer and the tiger ( I happend to read this, that's why I know). He also mentioned the 1967 giant: 3.22m btw the pegs, 857 lbs, or 388 kg. It was independent of and long before the Smithosnian article was written, and the figures do match: Smithosnian gives it:3.35m over the curve, 857 lbs. 3.35m over the curve, and 3.22m btw the pegs definitely well matched. Plus the credential of both sources ( the Smithsonian institution is the group that carried out the Nepal tiger ecology project in 1970s with John Seidensticker as the founding scientist; later on, when John left, Dr. Sunquist took over in 1975. So I think this record is reliable and should stay. If no one objects, I'm gonna restore it.

Formatting error in food section

There was a formatting error in the references in the food section of this article. I can't figure out what version of the section was the most appropriate, and don't have time to search through diffs right now. I think someone went to add some cited information, but added the citation incorrectly and wiped out most of the information about food. I can't tell, but I think the IP address that kept making edits was actually trying to fix the formatting, but just didn't know how. --JayHenry 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

brown bear as prey

I deleted two small parts, as they are probably speculative and unconfirmed.

  • and both tend to avoid each other. (tigers and brown bears). According to Mazak (Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983.) tiger attacks on bears are probably more common than usually believed. He knows 17 attacks on bears between 1944 and 190 in the russian far East and 15 attacks on bears alone in the central Sikchote Alin between 1950 and 1959. Four different studies (all mentioned in the book) reveal, that bears make up 5-8% of the Siberian tigers diet. It is probably right, that tigers, which a not very hungry tend to avoid adult brown bears, but this is actually not confirmed. Even adult males are among the victims. At least one case (it is described in the book) is reported where an large adult male brown bear was killed by a male tiger and one case is described in the same book, where a tigress pulled an adult brown bear female (with cubs)out of a den and killed it..... An indian tiger, which specialized on killing sloth bears is also mentioned in the book.
  • after their hibernation. (Tigers ambush adult brown bears....) perhaps it is not wrong, but it is also not confirmed. The above mentioned tigress killed the female brown bear in February, the large male bear was killed in winter!?

--Altaileopard 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiger articles seriously need protection

The amount of original research which keeps getting posted with no proof or references, mainly regarding size and prey, is just getting ridiculous now (example; The siberian tiger article mentioned that siberian tigers killed kodiak bears, despite the blatantly obvious difference in geography present in their names). I think it would benefit the articles on all tiger subspecies a lot if they were all in a state of semi-protection. Just look at the grey wolf article, and you'll see that it is a model animal article as a result.83.187.226.129 08:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Es exagerado.

He eliminado la vista comparativa entre un humano y un tigre de Siberia, pues el tamaño del tigre en esa ilustración es exagerado, ya si el humano mide 1.80 m (6 pies), el tigre mediría alrededor de 1.50 m (5 pies) a la altura de la cruz, ningun tigre actual tiene ese tamaño. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.166.113.73 (talkcontribs) 18:33, 17 August 2007.

Information.png I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Dubidub 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
En inglés, por favor. (Assuming Sr. there doesn't know English). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
       And if you need it, I translated the anonymous member's statement...

I deleted the hearing comparisons between a human and a Siberian tiger, as the size of the tiger in this illustration is an exaggeration, as if the human measured 1.80 m (6 feet), the tiger would measure about 1.50 m (5 ft.) at the height of the cross, no Tiger has that current size. --MurtaghxMisery 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No mention of average life span of tigers!

For an encyclopedic article, this one has no mention of the average lifespan of tigers in general or that of the various subspecies! Please correct this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.87.106 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Siberian tiger and bengal - size

Copied from User Talk:Altaileopard:

Hi

I notice you removed all of the weight of the Bengal tiger, as well as inf regarding northern bengal tiger > siberian tiger, saying the data is unconfirmed. As far as I see, they are all confirmed and sourced . What do you mean by unconfirmed? and with the largest siberian 40 kg less than the largest northern bengal tiger, the comparison statement is so obvious, what do you think?

We should use only zoological, reliable, references in wikipedia. lists of hunting records for example, are no good sources. A skin of a tiger can be stretched easily for half a meter. And if you measure over the curves, you can pull the measuring tape into the skin to "elongate" a dead animal enormously. A hunter wants always a very big animal...
In: Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. (1983) ISBN 3 894327596 are used only good, confirmed data. Mazak writes that the longest siberian tiger measured 350 cm (J A N K O W S K I ) in total lenght "over the curves", what would be about 330-335 cm "between the pegs". (The wheigt was estimated to be arround 300 kg.) Even this tiger is not defintiely confirmed, but it is the largest tiger, for which autentic data exist. The maximum wheight for Indian tigers from credible sources is 570 lb (258,2kg). This animal was shot in the Terai Region. The heaviest siberian tiger, for which we have reliable sources weighed 306 kg and was from Bouglione Menagerie. The heaviest wild amur tiger, for which Mazak has confirmed, exact data, weighed 270 kg. Mazak writes: All weights, which say 340 kg or even 384 kg for the heaviest tigers are not conirmed!!!!! I will change the article in this way, cause the book is really a good reference. Walkers mammals of the world says the same.... I have also some quite good books, which say that tigers are heavier and even Mazak wrote in his early times, that hey can grow bigger, but all these data depend on unconfrimed narratives.--Altaileopard 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Altai,

100 - 130 kg was by no means the average weight for Bengal tigress, all the specimens > 140 kg, so I changed it. If you have any objection, please let me know here before reverting. Thanks! Btw, Siberian < Bengal, we should discuss this, it's really serious!

I will answer you this evening.--Altaileopard 09:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, at first I reverted your edit in siberian tiger. You can not write anything, what is contradictionary to the standard book about mammals (Walker´s) without giving really good references (Papers ect.) Now I will have a look at the bengal tiger.--Altaileopard 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
After Makak:Der Tiger and Walker's Mammals of the World amur tigers are on average larger than bengal tigers. I do not completely exclude, that (northern) bengal tigers reach the dimensions of the siberian race, but we should follow really serious literature here. The book about big cats (Big Cats: Kingdom of Might), mentioned by you, is not enough to be a reference against these two highly scientifical books. That does not mean, that this book is not good.I think it´s okay and I will buy it in the near future.
But what can we do? Does this book (Big Cats: Kingdom of Might) really says, bengal tigers are on average larger than siberian tigers? If this is the case, we can write, that the bengal race is sometimes considered to be as big as or even larger than the siberian tiger.
Could you give me the exact text passage for this satement in this case?
Now let´s talk about the maximum weight. This was your edit:
The largest wild Bengal tiger, also the largest wild tiger ever recorded, was shot in Northern India in 1967, 3.35m in total length and weighed 388 kg, (857 lbs), while another, killed in Nepal in 1942, weighed 320 kg [1]. I am shure Mazak knows about them (He also mentioned the 384 kg siberian male), but he took only data, which are from really reliable sources. Whatever, are both maximum weights from Schallers book? If we keep them in the article, we should mention, that they are debatable and not accepted in other scientific literature. Can you please write down here the original text of Schallers book. Otherwise I have to buy this book, too.--Altaileopard 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I dont think so. Mazak only knew what he had read, the fact that he made no mention of any of the specimens from Nepal, measured by Dr. Mel Sunquist in 1975- 1976, and later on, by Dave Smith and Chuck Mcdougal is proof. Without specimens, all the average weight mentioned by Mazak, is at best, speculation or based on some other books. And the average weight he gave the Bengal is WRONG. Let's face it: Female:100-130 kg, 2.4 - 2.65m. Oh dear, the smallest female, T106 captured by Mr. Sunquist is 141 kg, 2.6m. Lakshmi tigress, T107 2.82m, 148 kg, Number One, T101 tigress, 164 kg, 2.77m. Even a 18 month old cub, tigress 103 weigh 114 kg, 2.61m.

Where is the refernce for me to read this?

That's proof that female Bengal averages much heavier and longer than Mazak figures. Males too, 105 3.1m, 102 2.92m, 104, 18 months old, brother of 103, weighed 160 kg and 2.89 m long. All straight measure. I've nothing against Mazak, because he didn't know about live specimens, so he relied on some scientific sources to come up with the fig 100-130, but those sources too, are guessworks. Btw, the 384 kg is so notorious, everyone knows about it(though it's garbage), thanks to media. Schaller mentioned the 320 kg(705 lbs) from Nepal in 1942. I read the book a while ago, it's not avail. in library now(lost), but I place an order. As soon as it comes in, I'll give u the words.

Okay, i think I also will buy it. I think we should wait with edits until one of us has the book, and we have the exact text passage.

All the myth about Northern Bengal is rubbish. The only confirmed superior tigers are those from Assam and Myanmar, with those from kaziranga being an example. Apart from Sunquist, Valmik Thapar himself, in his book: land of the tiger, also observed an ERNOMOUS tiger of Kaziranga being chased by a wild buffalo. Another report of a very large tigress jumps on top of elephant in Kaziranga national park, Assam.

http://www.toftiger.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=5

That said, apart from Assam, Nepal tigers or Northern Indian tigers have no size advantage compared to other Bengal. Nagarahole tiger ecology project (1986-1995), conducted by Dr. Ullas Karanth, a student of Mel Sunquist, provides some insight:

1 tigress, aka Sundari, weighed 150 kg. Another, T-02, weighed 177 kg, 2.5m. T-03, adult male, 257 kg, killed by a gaur. T-04, 3-4 year old male, 250 kg, 2.9m. T-01:old male, 231 kg. he mentioned another 240 kg collared male starving to death with broken canines. publications: The tiger:Power and fragility; Predator-prey relationships among the large mammals of Nagarhole National Park (India). Karanth, K.U. 1993a. Ph.D. thesis, Mangalore Univ., Mangalore. One more female, aka Bigfoot, has pugmark as big as a male.

A PhD. thesis is not a good refernece. A published paper is atually the minimum for such debatable changes. Another problem is that I can not find it in the net. Do you have it, can you send it to me?

You see, all the weight suggest a 245 kg average for male, and no fem. < 150 kg. Higher than Nepal, no? This to end the myth of Nepal tigers. There's another ecology prj in Panna, Central provinces, I'm trying to find reliable ref. Btw, Walker's is an encyc., not a specialist book of a particular species, so it should only be treated as a gen. ref, at lower level than specialist books or papers.


And now, Siberian vs Bengal. Mazak, as I said, no data he held, save for the 306 kg, so it was just pure speculation. Siberian averages < Bengal. I already said about it, and now, with even more specimens, I think it's all over now. Have a look, my friend! Another evidence from Baikov:

www.tigers.ru/books/baikov/he1.html

I can not open this page.

Ignoring all the BS of average weight, focus on live specimens he mentioned. You got it, long and light Siberian. Stay tuned...I'll be back.


Okay. I will be on hollyday for the next three weeks. When I come back, we have to discuss probably again. greetings--Altaileopard 09:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


You can't , me too, it's taken off the net, probably too valuable to give for free any longer. Luckily I saved a copy, heh. So, how can I send it to u?

All Nepal specimens are from the book: Tiger moon, 1988. Now, all of Baikov specimen accounts are reliable, according to Dr. Ullas Karanth. Here are the words:"Informative, if not wholly accurate regional accounts of tigers were published by Nikolai Baikov in Russia, William baze in Indochina..."(Karanth, 2001). Great stuff! Karanth also said in the same book, that measured bengal and Siberian specimens are about the same size.

First, I gave you the words from Big cats:Kingdom of might.Cheer up, most books I'v read so far, the authors, haunted by the continous bombard of media propaganda about the Siberian thruout the 20th century, say that Siberian biggest. Nevermind, they said it without any evidence, rather, a social obsession. At least the honest Tom brakefield, though still saying Siberian biggest, gave us some instances of bengal tiger larger than 300 kg. He didn't mention the notorious 384 kg (words in brackets are mine): "Though the bengal tiger (BT) may reach the same length as the Siberian tiger, it's less massive(my sympathy, he derived this from all the ref. he read)... The longest accurately measured BT, recorded in 1907, stretched 10 ft, 7in or 3.22m , of which, 3 ft, 7in was tail, and weighed a surprisingly light 491 lbs (this one killed in the terai). A huge male killed in Nepal in 1942 weighed 705 lbs, while another giant, killed in India in 1910, weighed 700 lbs, and spanned 9ft, 11.5 in in length. However, all of these are dwarfed by a gigantic cat killed in Northern India in 1967(the same province Corbett shot the Bachelor), which measured 10ft, 7in and weighed a mind-boggling 857 lbs". The largest mentioned Siberian is 771 lbs, in 1934. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is probably the last answer berfore my hollidays. Actually you should be able to write an e-mail with the button on the left side. But perhaps that is working only on my german account. I can not find the book "tiger moon".


Another thing: I have often problems to follow your references and from where your datas are respectively. From where is this passage for example? :

Though the bengal tiger (BT) may reach the same length as the Siberian tiger, it's less massive(my sympathy, he derived this from all the ref. he read)... The longest accurately measured BT, recorded in 1907, stretched 10 ft, 7in or 3.22m , of which, 3 ft, 7in was tail, and weighed a surprisingly light 491 lbs (this one killed in the terai). A huge male killed in Nepal in 1942 weighed 705 lbs, while another giant, killed in India in 1910, weighed 700 lbs, and spanned 9ft, 11.5 in in length. However, all of these are dwarfed by a gigantic cat killed in Northern India in 1967(the same province Corbett shot the Bachelor), which measured 10ft, 7in and weighed a mind-boggling 857 lbs

But anyway... I must say, that this text sounds uncritical and a bit lurid to me in comparison to Mazak, who gave the tigers size and the problems about measuring them a whole chapter. As you might have regonized in the meantime, I am very very critical about the exeptional large tiger giants. Moreover their existence would not say, that the bengal tigers are larger on average than siberian tigers. For this conclusion, we need any referneces, which say exactly this. Everything else is original research, wo is forbidden for wikipedia.....Though the bengal tiger (BT) may reach the same length as the Siberian tiger This sentence does not say a lot about the sizes of the subspecies. I does not say the bengal tiger is larger, not even in case of some (probably unconfirmed) exeptional large males.

An intermediate result could be:

  • Alomst all literature (scientific and popular) says the siberian tiger is on average larger than the bengal tiger.
  • You say the opposite is true. Your mentioned literature is still doubtful to me. (Sorry, but I can not follow your references exactly for this statement. That does not mean, that I will exclude that. I have a book from John Sidesticker: Riding the tiger and I mean to rember, that it says the bengal form could be of the same size than the siberian. Unfortunately I found not one exact data of size in this book. But I will check this book for infos.
  • You say Big cats:Kingdom of might is comparable in reliability to Mazak the tiger and walker´s mammals of the world. I don´t think that is the case.

Probaly we have to ask some other "specialists" about their opinion to this question.

I will be in the Altai for three weeks, where tigers were found in the southern slopes and as intruders until the middle of the 19. century. Here it was the caspian tiger, which was probably nearly as large as the bengal tiger (and in your view nearly as large as the siberian form.) --Altaileopard 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


I want to send u the Baikov account of Siberian, what says you, if I create an email acct and give u the usernm & pwd to check? That Ok?

Now, we must be clear on the point of debate: Biggest subspecies. Speaking of this, we should consider average size. If Bengal(or Siberian) is lager on average, then that subspecies is the biggest. Science Lion records of 270 kg, and even 311 kg reliable hunting records have been found, still, it doesn't mean lion > Bengal or Siberian , as they average lower. We need to get this point straight before going further. You agree with this?

Now, u said:"Alomst all literature (scientific and popular) says the siberian tiger is on average larger than the bengal tiger.". But, most of them, if not all, hold no specimen data, they just follow each other's fashion, no? And I'm very sure that Walker's encyc. just copied data and statements from Mazak, check their ref at the back ;-)

I say, based on specimens, which speak louder than any of the above, we can come up with new conclusion. I'll get u exceprt from tiger moon and Karanth papers next time. But first, let's talk about Pocock ref. of gaur carcass 13 men cant move. It's a reliable ref, with the prestige of Reginald Pocock, great zoologist of early 20th century. His work has been ref. by many great authors, inclu. Mazak himself. So, don't edit out this account. 2nd, Dr. Alan Rabinowitz of WCS , with a camera trap survey, revealed about 60 tigers in Huakaung valley, Myanmar in 2002. . Here's the excerpt from "Black Market:inside the endangered species trade in Asia". This book is new, u should be able to get to it(and see what's really happening to these species, that most publications overlook): "in late 2002, a team of wcs researchers led by Tony Lynam, a young Aussie biologist, spent 2.5 months usrveying the most promising jungle sites in Hukaung valley. They also collected some 4000 photos from special infrared cameras strapped to trees. The finding indicated there could be as many as 60 tigers in this remote valley, perhaps the largest viable tiger population in Myanmar." And then, in 2004, Huakung valley tiger reserve of 8400 sq miles was created. So, please don't edit out this either.

Back to size, let's list all specimens we have: first, Cnetral India, Panna tiger ecology project conducted by Dr.Raghu Chundawat, two males of 250 kg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/323feature3.shtml


Regarding specialist opinion, I got 3 for you next time. I'll be back for excerpt from Nagarahole, Chitwan, Siberia.

"I have a book from John Sidesticker: Riding the tiger and I mean to rember, that it says the bengal form could be of the same size than the siberian." . U know why? Cos he was with Mel Sunquist in chitwan project in 1970s, so he knows.

Just one more thing for this time: Can u get me the detail of the 270 and 306 kg SIberian tigers? How are they captured, what year, where, and how are they weighted? Cos' Scientists usually bring inadequate scales. I love to have more specimens for my tiger collection.

This is some excerpt from Tiger moon, written by Mel & Fiona Sunquist: "The next few hours were filled with activity & anxiety. While Mel and 5 Shikaris struggled to raised the tiger off the ground, I read the weight from the gauge. He was a big animal, weighing 440 lbs, nearly beyond the capacity of the scale." This is T102, a 4 year old male.

"Just as we were debating whether to return to the camp, another set of pugmarks appeared in the dust of the road. There was no question as to whose they were. Size alone told us they belonged to the 600 lbs Sauraha tiger. He was the territorial male at the Sauraha end of the park,..." This is T105

"Male cubs seem to grow faster and learn to kill on their own more quickly than females. When the Roaring Tigress and Tiger 104 were both 18 months old, she weighed 250 lbs and her brother was 100 lbs heavier." The Roaring Tigress is T103. I'll be back with Siberian data. For now, a present:

The Deer & the Tiger http://indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=12488

here's Excerpts from Tigers in the snow By Matthiessen, during the time he spent with the Siberian tiger project members: "Though large males of both races may range from 9-12 feet in lenght, P.t. Altaica, which must hunt harder and more widely for its food, may actually weigh less: Igor Nikolaev,the Siberian tiger project researcher with most field experience, knows of no wild Amur tiger exceeding 650 lbs, a weight also claimed for P.t. tigris. In theory, a large wild Amur tigress might reach 450 lbs, but as of 1999, the project had weighed some 15 tigress without finding one larger than about 320 lbs. In anycase, the average weights recorded by the project seem to be lower than those noted in the past. At least 1 authority suspects this's the difference btw real weights and hunters' estimates."

"In june 1992, we made our 2nd capture, a BIG, mature tigress we named Lena." Lena weight of 252 lbs, or 115 kg has been give later in this book.

"Tiger #12, a 400 lbs male (called Dale after Mr. Dale Miquelle), was located in a birch copse on a high rock pinnacle. Having no place to run, he must've been lying motionless on the sunny snow..."

"The large project tiger, nicknamed Dale dine regualrly on bears, which constituted the bulk of his diet".

Ullas karanth PHD thesis is a published paper, but not on the internet, it mentioned this one:T-02, weighed 177 kg, 2.5m. Another paper: The tiger:Power and fragility, mentions these tigers: 1 tigress, aka Sundari, weighed 150 kg. T-03, adult male, 257 kg, killed by a gaur. T-04, 3-4 year old male, 250 kg, 2.9m. T-01:old male, 231 kg. he mentioned another 240 kg collared male starving to death with broken canines.

So we have data from South, central, and north India, plus Siberian data. So far, the weights seem to favor Bengal.

Karanth, Sunquist, Seidensticker, and Siberian tiger project members state the same: Bengal and Siberian tigers are of similar sizes. So, I think satements like: At these sizes, Siberian tiger is the largest subspecies should be modified or removed. These 2 subspecies should get equal treatment. I'm fine with a compromise, but things like Siberian largest, and Bengal tiger's weight ranges of 100-140 for female, 205-227 for male are rubbish.

Mazak's ref. is great, but walker´s mammals of the world is not so creditable. It has not so accurate inf. regarding brown bear and wild cattles. Things like Kodiak bear of 780 kg, 3.6m tall etc.

This is the sexual dimorphism in wild Bengal tiger. The male looks twice the female:

http://indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=13800

Hi Altai, have a look, this is published by Igor G. Nikolaev and Victor G. Yudin , the former is the Siberian tiger project staff with most field experience:

http://www.tigers.ru/articles/nickl_e.html

the table shows the weight.

I forgot this: How does Mazak come up with the weight range for Amur tiger? Did he weigh, and if so, how many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.80.71 (talk) 08:40, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am fine with the idea to leave sentences like siberian tiger is the largest. Actually I am quite a bit sick of discussions about largest subsecies, species ect.. I think we also can add even exeptionally large males (far over 300kg) to the articles, but we should mention that they are debatable. To your questions: The 306 kg male was called "Circa". It was captured as a cub in the Ussuri Region and died in 1960 at Bouglione-Menagerie in France with an age of 10 years. Weights of amur tiger males, (most were shot in the wild) for which Mazak has really confirmed data are nine individuals: 245 kg, 250kg, 184 kg, 196 kg, 217 kg, 195 kg, 270 kg, 250 kg and 221 kg. Together with two tigers killed during an expedition (217 kg and 249 kg) and the 306 kg male he calculates a mean weight of 233 kg for male siberian tigers. --Altaileopard 12:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiger wiki ERROR

There is a picture of a supposed 'liger' on the Tiger wiki page... there is no such thing as a Liger, it is a fictional animal from the movie Napoleon Dynamite. The picture is a nice looking fake, but makes this wiki look silly. I suggest delting the Liger picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdg9 (talkcontribs) 04:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Liger is a real, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger 205.251.58.136 23:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indochinese tigers

This section is in major need of revision from recent sources. In light of the recognition of the Malayan tiger as a seperae subspecies. For example it still claims the largest population is in Malaysia. Is this true? I suspect most or all of the Malaysian tigers are Malayan tigers so probably not. The numbers also need to be looked at. We can presume any number predating the 2004 article would include Malayan tigers. This also applies to the Indochinese tiger article to some extent Nil Einne 21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Scuttled cultural depiction part

OK, I cut-and-pasted this here as some can be reincorporated with refs once there is a structure to this bit rather than the mess it is now. I have a couple of symbolism books. The idea would be a chronological progression much like lion but shorter. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Tyger! Tyger! Burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?...

William Blake, "The Tyger", Songs of Experience.

The tiger has long been a subject of imaginative literature. Both Rudyard Kipling in The Jungle Book and William Blake in Songs of Experience depict the tiger as a menacing and fearful animal. In The Jungle Book, the tiger, Shere Khan, is the wicked mortal enemy of the protagonist, Mowgli. However, other depictions are more benign: Tigger, the tiger from A. A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh stories, is cuddly and likable. In the Man Booker Prize winning novel "Life of Pi," the protagonist, Pi Patel, sole human survivor of a ship wreck in the Atlantic Ocean, befriends another survivor: a large Bengal Tiger. The famous comic strip Calvin and Hobbes features Calvin and his stuffed tiger, Hobbes. A tiger is also featured on the cover of the popular cereal "Frosted Flakes" (also marketed as "Frosties") bearing the name "Tony the Tiger".

The tiger is one of the most popular sports teams nicknames/mascots. Some examples are the Australian Football League team Richmond Tigers, the American Major League Baseball team Detroit Tigers, the NFL's Cincinnati Bengals(a reference to the bengal tiger), the Australian NRL team Wests Tigers, the English rugby union club Leicester Tigers, the English football (soccer) club Hull City and the NCAA Division I sports teams LSU Tigers, Auburn Tigers, Princeton Tigers, Memphis Tigers, and Clemson Tigers. In Asia, the Japanese Hanshin Tigers and the South Korean Kia Tigers are very popular Baseball teams, too.

During Bleeding Kansas in 1850s, pro-slavery militiamen operating out of Missouri who raided anti-slavery settlements in Kansas styled themselves the "Tigers." This tradition survives in University of Missouri mascot "Tigers."

Humble Oil, a division of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, USA, (Jersey Standard), used a caricatured tiger and the slogan "Put a Tiger in your Tank" to promote their gasoline/petrol products. Jersey Standard used a real tiger in its advertising when it took the Exxon name company-wide in 1972 and when advertising abroad as Esso. The brand kept the tiger mascot as a part of ExxonMobil when they merged in 1999.


The tiger is regarded as the king of the jungle in most parts of Asia, because its forehead has a marking which resembles the Chinese character 王, which means "king". Consequently, many cartoon depictions of tigers in China and Korea are drawn with 王 on their forehead. - added

The tiger is regared as a messenger of the "mountain god" or the "mountain god" himself in Korean traditional culture.

In a poll organised by Animal Planet in 2004, More than 50,000 viewers from 73 countries voted to decide their favourite animal. The tiger received 10,904 votes winning the title of the World's Favourite Animal, beating man's best friend, dog, by 17 votes. Third most popular was the dolphin, followed by the horse and the lion.[2]

A stylized tiger cub, "Hodori", was a mascot of the 1988 Summer Olympic Games of Seoul.

The image and name of the tiger are used on tins of Tiger Balm, an ointment for strained or sore muscles.

In Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, a British officer in the Zulu War is diagnossed to have lost a leg to a tiger. In this movie, they list the scientific name of the tiger as Felis horriblis, whereas in actuality the scientific name is Panthera tigris.

PS: The listy national symbols bit we can probably prosify too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tiger subspecies

In Encarta ([2]) it says that although in the past the Tiger family was divided into eight subspecies, recent studies show no reason to keep them apart, and therefore no subspecies (or just one) is nowadays recognized. From that point on it only talks about the species.

Does the article here need an update, is Encarta wrong, or is the matter still non-universally accepted?

--Deepfield 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is news to me. And Encarta doesn't cite any references to support this claim, either. So until it can be verified, I don't see any reason to change the article. Lighthope 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Media

Is there a way to display the media section more compactly? It's sort of distracting and long. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Flehmen response

I wanted to suggest that you move the picture of the Sumatran tiger next to the "Habitat" section down to where you discuss the Flehmen response, since that Sumatran tiger is exhibiting the flehmen response. I know other animals such as rhinos and deer also do the Flehmen thing. Also you discuss Tara the tigress in two different sections. Why not combine them? She was donated by the Frankfurt Zoological Society to Billy Singh for the reintroduction project. You've actually given me some ideas for another article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiger subspecies and African tiger

It's been suggested that the tiger should be reclassified into just three subspecies: the Caspian, the Asian, and the Sunda Island tiger. I've also heard that Louis Leakey found the jaw of a tiger in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania in 1957.

National Symbols

I removed the following from the list of places where tigers are "national animals":

First, the wording implies that both Nazi Germany and the USSR are still in existence. Second, both statements are questionable and unsourced. I've personally never heard of either being represented by tigers. Thirdly, the parentheses are miscounted. Some administrative regions and cities in the Russian Federation (e.g. Primorsky Krai) do feature tigers as official mascots or on their crests, but I don't personally feel that's notable enough to mention. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Videos

Is it really necessary to have so many videos posted? Many of them are the same as the others and really should be removed in my opinion. I makes the page look ugly. Zulu Inuoe (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely second the motion, especially since the videos are not particularly informative - revealing nothing biological except for how dull life in captivity can be. Easier access to the Citations, References and External Links would be welcome. If they were entirely removed - or perhaps all but one - that would be just fine by me. Any more opinions? Eliezg (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Since they're in Commons, just the Commons box in the external links should be enough. Before, it was fine when the videos required a separate media player to play, but now with browser play there's a big ugly screen instead. Endorse removal. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what the heck, I did it. If anyone feels strongly otherwise they're welcome to revert. Looking over the article there are lots of other problems. The "conservation" section is all about poaching, chinese medicine and rewilding programs (truly excessive - these can be summarized in a vouple of sentences no?) - there is only a cursory and choppy mention of status, habitat, prospects, historical trends, international conservation efforts - in a paragraph dominated by the image of Chinese businessmen chewing tiger penis! An expert's input (and some heavy-handed editing) would be welcome. No? Best, Eliezg (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The recent clean-up of Lion to Featured Article status could serve as a model here. But you're right that tiger needs a huge amount of work. --JayHenry (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are correct - lots of work needed. Many of these huge sub-sub sections can be forked into seperate wikis. Some sections need merging. Too much material about specific projects in few parts of the world, but no worthwhile overview. Very unbalanced. AshLin (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Purging

I performed a great purging and rewriting of material in the Conservation section. It remains unbalanced and poorly referenced, but at least it doesn't consume tens of thousands of kilobytes of questionable material (POV, OR, self-endorsements, trivial material). In case people want to look through it and see if there is anything worth gleaning I dumped most of it in a page here: Talk:Tiger/Extractions. Best, Eliezg (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did some more of the same, moving the salient bit of the Maneater section to the "Relationship with Humans" section, and the bulk of the overly long and specific stuff to: Talk:Tiger/Maneaters. Actually, I think there is enough interesting and well-referenced material there to warrant a new Wikipedia article: Tiger Maneaters or Maneating Tigers. It looks almost good to go as is. Thoughts? Eliezg (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and created a new Man-eating tiger page from the purged material. It just seemed a shame to leave all that stuff in limbo, especially since someone had obviously put a lot of effort into it! I did try to improve the encyclopedic style of the article, but succeeded only to a point. It probably need to be cross-linked and tagged and categorized in a dozen different ways, but it's there. Best, Eliezg (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

12,000 pet tigers in the US?!?

"...12,000 tigers are being kept as private pets in the USA, which is significantly more than the world's entire wild population.[62] 4000 are believed to be in captivity in Texas alone.[62]...The SPCA estimate there are now 500 lions, tigers and other big cats in private ownership just in the Houston area.[62]"

All of the references for the claims of vast numbers of pet tigers are citing a book version of a TV quiz show. Is this up to Wikipedia's reference standards for such an amazing claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.200.20 (talkcontribs)

Yeah, that can't possibly be true. --JayHenry (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
These figures must be more reliable. http://www.felineconservation.org/species/dynamics.asp?key=190 Shyamal (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

LEAPING ABILITY

Should there be refrence made to the fact Tatiana the Tiger in San Francisco was able to scale and leap over a wall over 12 feet tall?

Not until this is unambiguously confirmed. I haven't heard that negligence on the part of keepers has been entirely ruled out. That said, I'm sure there are sources somewhere reporting on the leaping ability of tigers. Eliezg (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Tigers have the ability to leap over 6+ foot fences while carrying a full grown deer. It was mentioned in a couple of books I read on tigers by hunters/conservationists like Jim Corbett. But I can't recall the exact book, so I can't source it. Lighthope (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)