This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
to avoid fights which is an actually reason why house cats run away from dogs. They try to avoid confrontation as much as possible. Mcelite ( talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
"My Autosigned by SineBot-->
Well it has to be cited from a reliable source that shows that the fights do go both ways and that it is not biased. Mcelite ( talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
+1-- Altaileopard ( talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
For instance, russian scientist Kostoglod examined all reliable encounters (until 1977) and found that in 9 cases a brown bear has killed a tiger and in 11 cases the other way around.
Kostoglod V.E. Relations between Amur tiger and Brown and Black Asiatic Bears in the Primorsky region // Rare mammal species and their conservation. Moscow, "Nauka", 1977
Another modern scientist, I. Seredkin, has mentioned 12 known cases when a tiger was killed by a brown bear.
Seredkin, Ivan. The ecology, behavior, management and conservation status of brown bears in Sikhote-Alin (in Russian). Far Eastern National University, Vladivostok, Russia, pp. 1-252
There is no modern or historical evidence of male fully-grown brown bears killed by tigers. The largest one (see Geptner and Sludsky) is a 170 kg male adult bear which is far from being a big Ursus arctos lasiotus. Brown bears are also known to kill adult male tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.12.80 ( talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
page can not open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharohxz ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
THAT ALtaileopard link doesn´t prove anything ( it has no scientific reports for example) is biased and full with the participation of a tiger fan that posts there what he wants. Well, tiger wikipedia link is full of BIASED SUPOSITIONS too, by the way. Is a sad true, why tiger and cat fans destroy the reality and beauty of tigers and felines in general with fantasy stories and hoaxes.I work here with fauna too, I´m a researcher and a protectionist. We are trying to protect the iberian lynx btw. But let´s separate facts from preferences,please.
Is very well known that the biggest brown bear ever confirmedly killed by a siberian tiger was only a small brown bear with 170 kgs ( Kaplanov) ( Amur full grown male brown bears ( Ursus arctus lasiotus) stay at between 300-360kgs when over 15 years old).
Is very well known that, on the other hand, full grown male tigers were already reportedly killed and eaten by adult brown bears ( Kostoglod,Sysoev, and many others,reported that, I can provide more scientists names and reports for whoever wants it...).
People have a lot of overestimation on tigers, but lack a lot of scientific sense: First- anatomically, brown bears have denser bones, are stronger, have thick fur, much bigger stamina, than siberian tigers. Brown bear claws are no joke can reach 9 inch and teeth maybe not as long as tiger ones, when compared animals of around the same size. Though really big bears ( 1500 pounds or more) have bigger teeth and stronger bite.However bite strenght doesn´t matter for animals that use much paw strikes. And brown bears have much stronger paw striking. In californian pitfights, a grizzly bear killed male lions with few paw strikes ( I can provide the descriptions of that happening)and even bulls.
Tigers are agile ( but for that they have weaker bones), have strong paws, hook shape claws ( like polar bear and american black bear), strong bite and big teeth.
These are also excelent weapons. But let´s say a tiger with 500 or really big at 600 lbs, would have an hard time to fight with an adult full grown brown bear that can be on the 700, 800, 1000, 1500, or even over 2000 pounds mark ( very rarely).
Russian scientists gathered data of tigers taking brown bears, and only observed female and cub killings by tigers and one young male with 170 kgs ( with an half the size of a full grown bear....).
On the other hand and differently there are reports of brown bears killings and taking full grown male tigers (not to say many cubs and females).
Also siberian tigers are a part of the diet of brown bears ( or were because tigers are very rare now), because brown bears were already seen killing a tiger that defend his killing carcass and after eating the carcass start to eat also the tiger. ( I can give more info about this for whoever wants it).
Also there is some informations on Interspecies conflict link(
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/) and forum (
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/) ( on which is debatable who´s the ultimate predator for example or who has advantage on a fight) that´s runned by scientists, zoologists and experts, and they all agree that big bears ( brown and polar) have an advantage over tigers.
Some of them are cat specialists,by the way.
So I hope that the tiger wikipedia should refer this too, and not saying, with no backup, just that tigers take black and brown bears, whenever they want. These 8 % of their diet ( that´s only true if you gather both brown and black bear) and regarding brown bears is only for juvenile and small bears, show a false pretending in favor of tigers. So this wikipedia sound like an hoax for every scientist, I´m really sorry. Tigers are also part of the menu of brown bears but is stupid to argue that they are part of their diet. Both species have more rather territory dispute than properly a prey-predator relationship, of course, specially when we talk about adults relations. The defecation act on the kills is made by both species which clearly indicates a dispute not a stupid joke like some say of prey-predator relation...
So do as you wish. Interestingly, is that there are more than one tiger wikipedia, each one show different facts, as the same for bears. And contradiction is vulgar on all of them. So we should believe in which?? I believe in scientific reports, I´m afraid... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.174.37.201 (
talk)
18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes that sounds very scientific SineBot. Powley ( talk) 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A bear can kill a person with just one full paw swipe, I don´t care if a tiger kill a person in seconds... Irrelevant. A brown bear isn´t a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 ( talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Now is impossible to edit this joke of wikipedia informations...LOL. So you tiger or cat fans jokes now must feel really happy... LOL. Interestingly is that your joke about tigers and bears is denied by several web links. So people find your info somewhat biased, not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 ( talk) 03:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This is all very interesting but has nothing to do with improving the article. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Any further discussion on this should be taken off-Wiki. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, as much as it is true that the biggest male tigers are about 100 pounds heavier than the biggest male lions (400 vs. 500 pounds) one should not forget to mention that tigers live in colder countries and that therefore they are quite adipose compared to lions as they are made almost solely of muscles and bones. And also one should mention the dense mane is a superb protection of the endangered neck and throat area. Tigers have a naked neck and lack this protection. Regarding all this a male lion is much stronger and a better fighter than a male tiger. -- Mustafa Mustamann ( talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, biggest of tigers can out grow biggest of lions by 150 to 200 pounds. Secondly most tigers live in India and India is a very hot place. Bangal Tigers are like lions build in muscles and bones. Amur tigers have thick fat laylers. So, your argument that tigers are adipose is false. I think you have never seen a tiger-versus-tiger fight. They usually fight to the end. And who said that lions are stronger than tiger. Tiger are symbol of power for a reason and that's because they are very, very powerful and much stronger than lions. So in an epic battle between an adult male tiger and adult male lion, the tiger would win but the fight would be really close and to the end. Upol007 ( talk) 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Male lion is called king of the jungle he dosn't even live in the jungle; they live in grass lands. The male tiger is the biggest of all the big cats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.15.160 ( talk) 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, in fact the male tiger is the biggest cat found in the wild, but the biggest cat of all is the Liger. They can weigh as much as 1000 lbs, twice as much as a very big lion Upol007 ( talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not a real species though. So it doesn´t count as it doesn´t occur naturally in the wild. It's rather a human-made experiment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.183.20.76 ( talk) 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed interesting to know who the winner of this big fight would be but considering some research I did, the tiger would win most of the time. In fact, the only time the lion was a winner was in a unfair male lion vs. tigrees fight and even then it bearly won (thanks to its big mane). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.93.76 ( talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
SOME MORE ARGUMET:
Largest lion in the wild -- 690 lbs. [male man-eater shot dead in Africa]
Largest Siberian [Amur] tiger in the wild -- 840 pounds
Largest Bengal tiger in the wild -- 870 pounds
Largest lion in captivity -- named Simba. It weighed it at more than 820 ponds
Largest tiger held in captivity -- forgot its name. Was of the Siberian subspecies and had a mass of about 1,024 pounds.
So, I hope a good idea is created -
TIGER IS THE STRONGER FIGHTER
! - --
96.232.63.175 (
talk)
23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I am loving seeing people try to outright throw it down. Please don't state things as fact and pretend like you actually know what you are talking about. This is all theory. And there has been discussion about size. First of all that is not all that matters especially when there are other contributing factors TO size (and otherwise for that matter) such as climate and fat content. Carrying on- to people who say Bengal Tigers are heavier (which they are, BTW)...150-227 KG for a male lion...180-248 KG for a male Bengal Tiger. (except in colder climates where they will have more FAT) Powley ( talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
To me tigers are mysterious,dangerous,adorable, and the most awesome animal in the world.
Well if you knew as much as I did about tigers you would know that as cubs their fathers will sometimes attack and possibly even kill their cubs just because of pure jealousy...of course if the mother were to interfere then they would die as well...
Because of their beautiful coats they are able to hide in their environment....but are also hunted because of it...of the many types of tigers 5 are extinct just because of this...and now all of the tigers are highly close to being extinct...they are very endangered.
I'm sure those have heard that there are people that tearing down trees...where if you look at it over 3 billion species live...including the tiger in these areas...this is why the zoos have been taking special care of them and why there are secret locations on where they are trying to regain the loss of tigers.
Many people in China have a belief that various tiger parts have medicinal properties killing them for purposes of medicine. There is no proof to support these beliefs. The use of tiger parts medicine use in China is already banned, and the government has made it clear that if they were to be caught this would be punishable by death. This has been banned in China since 1993. Still, there are a number of tiger farms in the country where they are breeding the cats for MONEY. It is estimated that between 4000 and 5000 captured, wild animals live in these farms today.China's wealthy businessmen are known to eat tiger penis as they feel it is a must do thing.
As you can see some people are sick...truly sick...but its in there heritage and though we have laws,there is somehow still animal cruelty and there is nothing we can do as hard as we try...fortunately there are people who but their lives in danger not only by being around these ferocious cats but because people are still hunting them and yet as they put their lives in danger they take care of these big cats and usually create a special bond with them appears...
Nominated 2008-02-01;
Support:
Comments:
Just in case it's useful, my sister is a tiger expert at ZSL. I'd be happy to contact her to try to get pointers to sources needed, if that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. I love tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo81001 ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know how tigers can live but it is not written in the article. Is their average life span comparable to the average life span of lions? -- Tubesship ( talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The record for a tiger living in captivity is 26 years. Lions can live up to 35 years. 20 is extremely old for a tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I think that poor old lion in Kabul Zoo lived to be 38. He was born in a German zoo. PLEASE DO MODIFY THIS! DONT MIND THE RED TEXT SAYING DON'T!
It says, "The heaviest wild Siberian tiger on record weighed in at 985 kg..." but according to the Record's World Book, the largest male of this sub- species surpassed the 1,000-pound mark, which was almost 20 years old and held in captivity. Should we check this and maybe have some cleanup or additional info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.93.76 ( talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that this paragraph should be deleted : "Nimer" (tiger) is a common Arabic male first name,[85] fulfilling a similar function (i.e. calling a man by the name of a strong and powerful animal) as "lion" names such as Leon, Leo or Leonard in various European languagues.
since "Nimer" is not the arabic name for tiger, thats a common mistake most people make, the name Nimer means Leopard in arabic, the true arabic name for tiger is actually "Babr", thats the same as the persian name. Nimer comes from an arabic adjective "Anmar" or "Nimar" which means spotted, which in turn refers to the leopard ( check the arabian leopard sceintefic name ). The arab first knew the tigers from north iraq and from their trades with india, they couldn't have possibly called it nimer since the name doesn't describe it as it is.. I just wanted to make this point clear, thanks. MoeFe ( talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a tiger fan and I really like these animals a lot. So, my goal is to make this article a featured article, but I'd need some help to identify the weaker parts of this article, what should be done to feature it.-- 71.190.82.81 ( talk) 21:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I was checking out some older versions of this article, and i have to say that great things are done here. Before it sounded so bad, really! Today, it flows so well. However, I noticed some videos at the end of the old article, which can also be used here.-- 96.232.61.201 ( talk) 01:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted all of the descriptions from the subspecies list, and then put a table in the physical characteristics section, with the lengths, weights and descriptions of each of the subspecies.
Also, I took the weights and lengths from "Tiger Territory", www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger. I don't like using a single source (particularly from the internet) but I thought this was best for consistency, and the site is a pretty good resource. I've referenced the website.
So...what do you think of the changes? I'm not very experienced with using tables on wikipedia, so please clean it up if you think it looks too messy. Alphard08 ( talk) 08:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
this is true facts.as cubs of most big cats grow older, the colour of their eyes changes from blue to yellow. i've been searching on wikipedia, but only to found this fact is true after doing some own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.152.21 ( talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
White tigers do not have crossed eyes because of inbreeding. In 40 years I have never heard of a single case of a white tiger having a cleft palate, have you? Golden tabby tigers carry the white gene. They are usually born in litters which have white tiger cubs. If inbreeding caused white tigers to have crossed eyes orange tigers born in the same litters as white tigers would also have crossed eyes. White tigers have been reported from the wild in the Siberian tiger subspecies as well as the Bengal, according to Richard Perry writing in "The World Of The Tiger." He said that white tigers were found in northern China and Korea. White tigers are also part of the folklore in Java and Sumatra so they must have existed there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.5 ( talk) 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS Richard Perry's book is one of the sources for the Tiger wikipedia article.
Cross eyed white tigers occur only in captivity, and are generally all descended from a specimen kept in a harem two centuries ago. White cubs can occur in normal, wild litters, its just that the zoo specimens all descend from very limited captive bred stock. Dark hyena ( talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Actually being descended from a small captive stock has nothing to do with it. If it did orange siblings of white tigers would also be cross eyed. The crossed eyes are directly linked to the white gene. White tigers have a visual pathway abnormality. This causes some to be cross eyed. Read the white tiger wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider the bigcatrescue website credible. Do you have any other source for a white tiger having a cleft palate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC) The bigcatrescue website does'nt seem very accurate. If that's your only source I must conclude there is no record a white tiger having a cleft palate. That website is the worst.
Thank you for this. I will go back and look. I do not recall anything in Tigers Of The World about a white tiger having a cleft palate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at the bigcatrescue website and it says that 80% of white tigers are stillborn ! This is absolute rubbish. This is why I don't consider them credible. I have also never heard of any other white tiger having a deformed face and there are around 600 white tigers in captivity now. There is nothing typical about a white tiger having a deformed face. The bigcatrescue website also says that white tigers have an 80% infant mortality so I wonder which is it-80% stillborn or an 80% infant mortality. Either way it's untrue.
The other website you mentioned only refers to cleft palates in "Corbett's tiger", not in a white tiger.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I know we've spent enough time on this, and you've been kind enough to indulge me, but I had a look at the wikipedia article on cleft palates and it says that cleft palates occur in one in 600 births. By coincidence there are estimated to be 600 white tigers alive in the world. That would mean that if there is one white tiger with a cleft palate (and I'm not convinced there is one) that's exactly what should be expected if it has nothing to do with inbreeding, just like the crossed eyes have nothing to do with inbreeding. I don't think that white tigers are any more inbred than purebred dogs, but since they do tend to be inbred there should be a lot more white tigers with cleft palates if that was caused by inbreeding. At one time the Sumatran tigers in North American zoos were more inbred than white tigers. They were all descended from a single pair-I think at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The Amur tigers in zoos are also inbred and I suspect that the wild Amur tigers are also inbred.
I also wonder whether that white tiger with the deformed face (Kenny) may not have that deformity because of poor nutrition or a severe injury rather than inbreeding. Since white tigers are inbred why would'nt there be more white tigers with deformed faces? Why just one out of 600? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but all of the other physical defects you list are well documented. There is no record of any white tiger ever having a cleft palate with the possible exception of Kenny. I think if white tigers had cleft palates Tigers Of The World would have mentioned it. Tiger Of The World does mention a single case of a white tiger having central retinal degeneration. It was a male white tiger in the Milwaukee County Zoo. There's no mention of white tigers having cleft palaltes from any credible source. The figure I gave for white tigers-600-is the estimate of how many are alive today. You could add to that all of the white tigers which have ever been born in captivity and it would be hundreds more, and there's still no record of even one having a cleft palate, again with the possible exception of Kenny, who does'nt live at Big Cat Rescue. Big Cat Rescue's own white tiger is normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you've already told me why 1 in 600 cannot be a reliable estimate, and to be honest I did'nt realize we were having an argument. I thought this was a friendly discussion. My mistake. I have looked at lists of every physical defect of every single white tiger ever born in captivity over the past fifty years. I had already done this long before you made your suggestion. I am sure you can guess that cleft palates are not on any list. That was kind of my point from the very beginning. It has never been my intention to engage in an argument with you. If I had known this was an argument, as opposed to a friendly conversation, I would never have answered, because it would'nt be worth my time. Believe me I have no interest in having an argument either, with you or anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.5 ( talk) 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) PS I have been in contact with many tiger experts, although not recently.
I'm not sure where to begin here. I have never heard of brachyphaly in a white tiger before. (I've never heard of brachyphaly before.) If that refers to the "bull dog" face I have read about that on the white tiger wikipedia article and on Sarah Hartwell's messy beast website. I don't recall if that expression was used, but brachyphaly does'nt appear on the lists I've seen either. I am admitting of course that I don't know whether Kenny has a cleft palate. I was entertaining the possibility that he might and that he may be the only white tiger on record with a cleft palate. I did'nt know that Zabu was missing her upper lip and had a cleft palate. I have'nt read everything on their website. By the bull dog face you are refering to Kenny's deformity, but how do we know it was present from birth and was'nt caused by an accident? Kenny was given to another sanctuary by a private breeder. They would only know what the private breeder chose to tell them. You may well be right about Kenny. It's also possible that that private breeder has white tigers which are far more inbred than most. I just know there have been hundreds of inbred white tigers without deformed faces or missing upper lips. I think the bigcatrescue website describes Kenny as "typical", when he is anything but. There's also a Dr. Laughlin associated with Big Cat Rescue. He spent a year in prison and six months in a halfway house for stealing five white tiger cubs from the Hawthorn Circus. There are so many ridiculous assertions on that website. I think it says that all white tigers are cross eyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) By the way I think you mentioned white tigers having kidney problems. Kidney problems are endemic to big cats in general and not to white tigers in particular. And I think that selective breeding has virtually iliminated crossed eyes in white tigers and Siamese cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages. I know there are still cross eyed white tigers. There's one in a zoo in Hawaii. I mean't it has been eliminated in some bloodlines. It depends on who's doing the breeding. Kidney problems are common in big cats. How old was Chester when he died? I'll bet he was a ripe old age. Did you know that he fathered the first test tube tiger? That was in the United States before he became the first white tiger in Australia. He came from the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) PS Somewhere I read that a majority of the Siamese cat "founders" were cross eyed, so the situation has been improved. There are several breeds derived from the Siamese which, as far as I know, are never cross eyed, like the Himalayan and rag doll etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I could'nt find anything about Chester dying on the internet, but his brother lived to be 18 at the Washington DC Zoo, which is a really good age for a male, and had no kidney problems. http://www.nbc4.com/news/1700325/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC) They called him Taj, but his real name was Panghur Ban. I had a conversation with John Cuneo, the owner of the Hawthorn Circus, a while back and he told me that they have very few cross eyed white tigers, and that these are amongst the oldest they have. They have bred this trait out of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
In the National Geographic documentary "Keepers Of The Wild" they showed an old Amur tigress in the San Francisco Zoo which had to be put to sleep because of kidney problems. I was told by a volunteer at the Toronto Zoo years ago that white tigers have kidney problems, but I have yet to find anything in print which confirms this. I have been told that it's untrue that white tigers have kidney problems (more than big cats in general.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that came from K.S. Sankhala's book Tiger ! I think abnormal kidneys would have been caused by inbreeding, and Chester was not inbred. He was bred from unrelated parents. His father was a white tiger named Ranjit from the US National Zoo and his mother was an orange tigress named Obie who lived at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha. She was roughly half Amur tiger and half Bengal. She was a second generation hybrid and he (Ranjit) was a registered Bengal tiger.
I just read that cleft palates in cats are caused by a vitamin A deficiency during development rather than genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just saw your message. It was in The Siamese Cat A Complete Owner's Manual by Marjorie McCann Collier, Barron's 1992. I am having trouble keeping this on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"A defect that can be accommodated until a time that surgery can be performed is cleft palate. In some species cleft palate appears to be a genetic defect; in cats it can be caused by insufficient vitamin A during development."
I was looking at Siamese kittens in the pet shop the other day and it appeared as though any of them which looked in my direction were slightly cross eyed. I wonder if they all are. I think the visual pathway abnormality is more pronounced in Siamese cats than it is in white tigers. I was also noticing how they all had dark colored noses. That's one of the places where the cold makes the fur darker in Siamese cats. I've noticed that white lions seem to have darker fur on the nose also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Lion tamer Clyde Beatty said that whenever there was a fight between a tiger and a lion the lion never won. That's from his book "Facing The Big Cats".
Golden tabby tigers all carry the white gene. They are intermediate between white and orange. They probably result from the combination of the orange gene with the stripeless white gene.
I don't think that what you're saying is correct, or that any other gene is involved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The second one is identical to the white tiger wikipedia article. I mean the nationmaster one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Down here I was'nt dismissing your sources. I was just making the observation that the second one was the same as the wikipedia. I just thought that was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no section on the Bornean tiger? i.e. Meijing, Erick. The Bornean tiger, speculation on its existence. Cat News 1999 Spring:-30:12-15 ISSN: 1027-2992 Descriptors: tigers, Panthera tigris, possible native species in Borneo, introduction at some point, discussion of reports, validity of sightings, Borneo. There used to be a lot of information on this topic on the 5 Tigers website. They had photographs of tiger skins from Borneo.
It seems that the 5 Tigers website no longer has information about the Bornean tiger unless I'm looking in the wrong place. The Time Life Nature book on Asia says something about the Bornean tiger and a fossil tooth. What is the scientific name of the Bornean tiger? If it went extinct that recently it should be mentioned with the other subspecies. Peter Matthiessen, writing in "Tigers in the Snow", said that tigers may have disappeared from Borneo, despite it's being good tiger habitat, because of the absence of deer. He said that deer were only recently introduced to the island. Of course he means after the tiger disappeared. If people are seeing tigers on Borneo today maybe they are swimming from Sumatra. He did'nt say that last thing I was just speculating. I believe that there are also fossil tigers from Sakhalin Island, Japan, and Beringia. That's probably in Tigers Of The World. There are also supposed to be fossil tigers from Java which are very large, from tigers which were not ancestral to the modern Javan tiger. I can't remember where I read that. On the subject of the Javan tiger I believe there was at least one in the Budapest Zoo in the 1970s, but it may have turned out to be a Sumatran tiger. It's possible that tigers lived in North America and that some tiger fossils have been mistaken for lion fossils. There are some amazing old black and white photographs of Javan tigers in the Berlin Zoo in Tigers In The Snow. I tried to find you a copy of the article online by putting IUCN Cat News into the search engines, but apparently you have to be a member: http://www.catsg.org/catnews/index.htm
I've made a few changes to the tiger article recently. One of them, however, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do - in "territorial behaviour", I've quoted a paragraph from one of my sources (and referenced it accordingly). Is this actually allowed? If not, I'll delete it immediately. Alphard08 ( talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This is from Louis S.B. Leakey, writing in "Animals Of East Africa" in 1969: "In 1957 we found the largest fossil jaw of a felid yet recorded from the gorge, and its shape is more like a present day tiger's than the lion's." "The jaw of a tiger rests with a three point contact on a table, while the jaw of a lion has the lower margin curved like the rockers of a rocking chair so that if you put it on a flat surface you can tilt it back and forth easily. Our fossil mandible from upper Bed II stays as steady as a tiger's on our laboratory table. This does not mean however that the big cat of Olduvai was striped like a modern tiger. It may have been, but naturally we cannot be sure." pgs. 162-163 (I think this may have turned out to be a saber tooth tiger.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a book in the references to the white tiger wikipedia titled "Der Tiger" by Mazak. There's something else by him included in the references to this article. Vratislav Mazak was or is a Czech taxonomist, who asserted the status of the Bali tiger as a distinct subspecies. He discovered cranial variiations like a narrower occipital plane, which in theory distinguish the Bali tiger from the Javan subspecies. I don't know if this would be worth mentioning in the article. The Indo-Chinese tiger was not recognized until 1968, which means that up to that point Indo-Chinese tigers were regarded as Bengal tigers.
I found where I read the stuff about the fossil tiger from Java. It is in Tigers in the Snow by Peter Matthiessen. He said that the Japanese tiger was the same size as other island tigers. It was extinct already when people arrived in Japan. Fossil tigers from Java were as large or larger than any modern race (like most fossil tigers) and it is generally believed was not the ancestor of the modern Javan tiger. There are also fossil tigers from Lyakhov Island off the northern coast of Siberia. During the ebb and flow of the glaciers the tiger reached Sakhalin Island, Japan, and Borneo (where the Bisaya tribe still prize its few teeth, claiming their ancestors hunted them as recently as two or three centuries ago.)He also says that the tiger may have reached Alaska, but there is no fossil evidence of this. He said that there is no record of there ever having been a Bali tiger in captivity. There were Javan tigers in zoos until the end of WWII. After that it became easier to acquire Sumatran tigers for zoos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I've read that in places where tigers are'nt bothered by people they are diurnal and start living in prides like lions. There was an article in the Journal Of The Bombay Natural History Society about a tiger and a leopard, which were friends, and used to share kills.
I have an account, but I'm nervous using it in a library because I'm afraid I'll forget to log out and I thought this article was locked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I'm trying to find out whether the Bornean tiger has a scientific name. I wrote a letter to Ron Tilson and I sent an e-mail to another tiger expert at a zoo in Washington state. I might be able to do some work on the article, but not today.
The opening sentence of the article states that the tiger is the biggest and the most powerful of the cats. What data are you using to varify the "most powerful" part? In all due respect, but I don't see how you can say that? What is the proof? Lions have been known to drag buffalo and giraffe. What is the scale used here to justify calling the tiger "the most powerful"? Size? On average the tiger doesn't have more than 40 lbs of a weight advantage and most of it is fat. Tigers have a thincker layer of fat (especially the Siberians), hence the slightly heavier weight. The skeletons and muscle mass are the same for the two cats. I would suggest that you remove the "most powerful" part as it can't be confirmed in any scientific way. Is this a credible article or a ZooBook? 63.161.203.11 ( talk) 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Where is the evidence of that? No, not a quote from a site or a book. Show me at least ONE picture of a tiger and a gaur together. Just because there are a few shots of a tiger eating a gaur does not mean it killed a gaur. There are tons of images and videos of lions eating elephants. That's not always an actual kill. The animal could've been sick, injured, old, etc. Same with Tigers and Gaurs. There are pictures and clips of them hunding deer, but never a gaur. So, until there is some factual evidence, I don't think it should be listed in the article. 63.161.203.11 ( talk) 22:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)There was an article in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society about a tiger attacking an elephant.
There now.
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/hunting6.html
http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot631.jpg
Images taken by Shri Vikram Singh Parihar. Belsavis , 6 April 2009
"This is probably one of rarest pictures in this book. Kublai, the resident male, the Nalghati tigress and her two cubs all share a tiny pool of water, cooling off on a hot May evening. For centuries male tigers have been regarded as a threat to young cubs, but in all three families we observed, we saw the male tiger sharing his food, partaking of the tigress's and cubs food, nuzzling the cubs and generally keeping a protective eye on them. After Nalghati left the pool, Kublai spent nearly an hour playing with the cubs. This is the first photographic record of tiger and tigress and cubs together in natural conditions." Pg. 43 Tigers: The Secret Life by Valmik Thapar, Elm Tree Books London 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"Recent studies by Sandra Herrington of skulls from eastern Beringia (modern-day Alaska) now suggest that both tigers and lions were present there within the past 100,000 years during the last glaciation." Pg. 74 The Big Cats And Their Fossil Relatives by Alan Turner, Columbia University Press, N.Y. 1997. That "African tiger" did turn out to be a saber tooth tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Tigress-Jowlagiri.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Recent work on genetic and craniometric substructure in tigers has shown that fine scale analysis does match the recognized sub-species (1, 2).
It appears that the Siberian tiger is the most distinct of the mainland races, but overlaps with the now extinct Caspian sub-species in terms of cranial morphology. In turn, the Caspian tiger overlaps with the other mainland types, who differ from each other on average, but also overlap heavily (2). The Siberian/Caspian tiger connection is also clear when looking at Mitochondrial DNA (3). Samples taken from preserved remains of Caspian tigers show that they share a major mtDNA haplotype with Siberian tigers, and thus a very recent history. It appears that tigers colonised central Asia at most 10,000 years ago, and the modern Siberian stock may be the result of a few Caspian tigers subsequently wandering east via northern Asia (3).
The Indonesian island tigers appear to be quite different from the mainland races in terms of cranial matrics, but very similar to each other (2). Also, in 2008, genetic testing of Javan and Bali tigers was still in preliminary stages, but initial results showed that it was quite difficult to distinguish between the three Indonesian sub-species based on mtDNA markers(4).
1. Shu-Jin Luo, 2008, Subspecies Genetic Assignments of Worldwide Captive Tigers Increase Conservation Value of Captive Populations.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(08)00434-X
2. Ji H. Mazák, 2008, Craniometric variation in the tiger (Panthera tigris): Implications for patterns of diversity, taxonomy and conservation.
doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2008.06.003
3. Carlos Driscoll.(January 2008). Caspian tiger phylogeography.
http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/semsched/details/carlos_%20abstracts_jan2008.pdf
4. Letter from the extant/extinct tiger project to a sample donor, freely available on the web.
http://iceagetiger.com/tiger.pdf
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpwes ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
That opening sentence has fanbois written all over it. Does ANY other article on Wikipedia describes an animal like that? Do you have the "largest and the strongest" on the polar bear page? Or a great white shark page? This is so petty! You can not accurately tell me that the tiger is legitimately "stronger" than a lion. No scientific data supports that. Did the two paw wrestle and the tiger won?! You're talk about a species here. "Largest" is also debatable as I wrote out in the previous post. Please change the opening statement. It should be take into account that ONLY the Nepal Bengal tiger AVERAGES heavier than the lion. The lion is also longer and taller. So you should used the word "heavest" not "largest". I think the opening sentence of the article should read, "The tiger (Panthera tigris) is a member of the Felidae family that reaches the heaviest weight measurments among the four "big cats" in the genus Panthera." 63.161.203.11 ( talk) 18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have provided some information about the prey taken by each cat in the Lion discussion. By the way, this argument is seriously not worth getting so steamed up over - really, there are more important things in life to be arguing about. And there's no call to insult each other either.
Pgecaj: You may well be right when you say that the tiger is the most powerful of all felines living in the wild (although not of all cats - ligers are much bigger, after all...). I wouldn't be surprised either way. However, until I see some good, scientific evidence, I'd rather this statement not be in the opening sentence of the article, since most sources that have stated this "fact" tend to be rather unscientific, and one that is (supposedly) scientific comes up with measurements of the lion and tiger's strength that don't really seem to tally with reality.
Consider this abstract by Samuel Haughton:
"IN NATURE, vol. xii., p. 474, in a review of Dr. Fayrer's book on the tiger, doubts are thrown by the reviewer on the statement that the tiger is stronger than the lion. Dr. Fayrer's statement cannot be contradicted by any person well acquainted with both animals. In my book on ``Animal Mechanics, published in 1873, I have proved, p. 392, that the strength of the lion in the fore limbs is only 69.9 per cent. of that of the tiger, and that the strength of his hind limbs is only 65.9 per cent. of that of the tiger."
Unfortunately, I could not view the actual text, so I don't know what methods Samuel used to reach this conclusion. However, I was a little alarmed by the final figures, for three reasons:
1) How did he get so precise a measurement of the strength of a lion compared to a tiger, ie. down to point one of a percent? The strengths of animals may vary quite considerably from individual to individual within a species, so it's highly unlikely that we could actually pinpoint the strength of one species compared to another so precisely, since the error bars and uncertainty would be fairly substantial.
2) What subspecies of lion and tiger are we talking about here? What sex were the animals?
3) Suppose he's right, and the lion has, say, only 66% of the strength of the tiger in its hind limbs. Now, tigers have been reported making horizontal leaps of up to 10 metres. Logically, a lion, which weighs little less than a tiger, should only be able to make a leap of up to about 6.6 metres, if it only has two thirds of the strength of the tiger in its hindlimbs.
However, just look at these accounts in Walker's Mammals of the World, for the tiger and lion respectively:
Tiger
"It has been reported to cover up to 10 metres in a horizontal leap." (page 825)
Lion
"Leaps of up to 12 metres have been reported." (page 832)
Walker's Mammals of the World is recognised by many to be a very good resource. Even allowing for a bit of exaggeration, it is still apparent that the lion can probably leap at least as far as the tiger, so how can it possibly have only two thirds of the tiger's strength in its hind legs?
This is precisely the kind of discrepancy that really bothers me in this type of discussion, and thus the reason why I'd rather delete the "strongest" part of the first sentence of this article, until it can be properly verified.
Also, I am aware that it's usual to equate "heaviest" with "largest". However, I see nothing wrong with being as specific as possible, and thus I don't think this article has to follow the convention. Alphard08 ( talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I edited the changes made by one of the editors from the lion's article. After making the article in word featured, he came here scandalizing this article.
I inverted his edit by restating that the tiger is the largest and the most powerful of all cats, as opposed to simply heaviest. I did that for several reasons. One being the fact that almost all reputable sources accept the idea of the tiger being the largest and strongest. I's almost impossible to open a book about tigers or large cats and not see the words LARGEST and STRONGEST used to the tiger's credit. The same the thing can be said for documentaries. And there's a good reason for that.
First of all, allow me to justify the use of the term "largest" in this article. Tigers weigh up to 660 lbs. No other cats can be that heavy.
Also, tigers measure up to 13 feet. No lions can be that long.
The lions is only slightly taller, but it is to mention that has more to do with the fact that the lion keeps his head up when walking while the tiger walks head-down style. Plus, lion height is measure including the mane!!
Moreover, in zoology the term largest is almost always means heaviest -- it's just more formal to use. If height mattered so much, then I guess we all are wrong to call the elephant the largest land mammal. Isn't the giraffe like much taller, yet a lion being 1 inch or 2 taller than the tigers, all of sudden, is all it matters. Furthermore, when it comes "larger" components, the lion is taller, that's it, while the tiger is heavier, longer, and more voluminous. So, it's 3 components for the tiger versus one for the lion. And ... height at the shoulder has no significance on the animals size overall - it's basically just the length of the forelimbs. We consider total length (nose to tail) and weight.
Now, as for "the most powerful". This so simply... if the power of two nearly identically-built animals is measured, the larger is always (almost always, just to fade off speculation) the more powerful. That would be the tiger with more muscle mass! This is a law of physics and cannot be ignored. We can challenge theories, but not laws.
Plus, tigers have much thicker legs even proportionally, which is likely to make a tiger more powerful even pound per pound.-- Pgecaj ( talk) 20:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
"A display of "strength" (e.g. lifting a weight) is a result of three factors that overlap: physiological strength (muscle size, cross sectional area, available crossbridging, responses to training), neurological strength (how strong or weak is the signal that tells the muscle to contract), and mechanical strength (muscle's force angle on the lever, moment arm length, joint capabilities)."
1) Using a series of tests to obtain a numerical value of the "strength" of various parts of each animals (ie, forelimbs, hindlimbs, shoulders, etc...)
2) Demonstrate that the tiger can perform a feat of strength that the lion is conclusively shown to be incapable of performing.
I found this website with clear pictures showing a tiger with a live gaur. The gaur is brought down and likely paralized by the large chunk of meat bitten off of it. If don't already have the website listed along the other sources, here's the link http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/hunting6.html
"Adult brown bears are known for killing and driving off adult male tigers." Please where is the evidence to suggest such a thing? Brown bears—most certainly—will avoid male tiger as much as possible, while the latter have been known to kill bears up to 800 pounds head-to-head; in fact, according to tiger researchers, such as Mazak, attacks on adult bears are more common than people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.49.31 ( talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) At least one evidence is written here: 1972 r.Komissarovka, Pogranichny, killed by bear
http://tigers.ru/articles/tab_eng.html#tab1
There is another case which heppened is Sikhote-Alin (1960).
Male brown bears do not avoid tigers. No scientfic source confirms "bears up to 800 pounds" killed by the tiger. You repeat a well-known internet hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.12.34 ( talk) 12:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Lions have manes which protect against any attack to the neck and have stronger forelimbs+ taller body+ more experienced. Tigers are stronger, quicker and bigger.
I'd say that a bengal tiger vs african lion- the tiger would just grab a victory. However, the Barbary lion, which is now severely endangered should be able to beat a bengal tiger quite easily. It is the same size as the bengal tiger so it has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages. Not to mention it also has a thicker mane which also runs down its stomach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britain999 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
NO, we are not gonna continue this - it doesn't have any importance relating to the article, but if you ask me, I think the tiger would most likely win. -- Pgecaj ( talk) 04:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the Barbary lion had reached the size of the Bengal tiger. Actually Mazák state that the size of this subspecies was about the same that the east African lions. The mane is just a sexual and health sign. Be careful with these comments.-- AmbaDarla ( talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"Adult brown bears are known for killing and driving off adult male tigers." Please where is the evidence to suggest such a thing? Brown bears—most certainly—will avoid male tiger as much as possible, while the latter have been known to kill bears up to 800 pounds head-to-head; in fact, according to tiger researchers, such as Mazak, attacks on adult bears are more common than people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.49.31 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) At least one evidence is written here: 1972 r.Komissarovka, Pogranichny, killed by bear
http://tigers.ru/articles/tab_eng.html#tab1 There is another case which heppened is Sikhote-Alin (1960).
Male brown bears do not avoid tigers. No scientfic source confirms "bears up to 800 pounds" killed by the tiger. You repeat a well-known internet hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.12.34 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Tigers will easily get killed by a brown bear of any size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britain999 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I am reading "My India" by the famed hunter Jim Corbett. At the end of the third paragraph in Chapter 1 he says: "...as tigers have no sense of smell." Is this correct? Indianscoop ( talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
They do have quite a decent sense of smell (they leave scent marks to communicate with each other, for example). What Jim Corbett meant was that the tiger's sense of smell is pretty much irrelevant as far as stalking tigers is concerned. Unlike, for example, bears, wolves or deer, who rely primarily on their sense of smell to detect danger, one can approach a tiger regardless of wind direction. Belsavis ( talk) 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is my first contribution to the world of Wikipedia so please bear with me, and in light of much of what I have read on this discussion page alone: Please be polite to me, assume my good faith, avoid attacking me personally, and be welcoming.
I am concerned with this general article on tigers and with the articles on the Siberian/Amur tiger (P. t. altaica) and Caspian Tiger (P. t. virgata). Quoting an open source that I found cited on this very page (
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004125), recent research involving mitochondrial molecular genetics seems to be uncovering possible historic errors made in taxonomic subspecies definitions:
The article goes on to describe how these new research results seem to indicate that that the Siberian subspecies is genetically so close to the Caspian subspecies as for them to be considered one and the same:
The article concludes that in light of this new information there was a historical mistake in designating a new subspecies for the extant population found in far eastern Russia; in fact there never was a Siberian tiger subspecies.
I would be most certainly in favor of keeping the Siberian Tiger subspecies page as many people will be looking to find a "Siberian tiger" page for years to come, but facts are facts; the Caspian tiger is still alive in far eastern Russia and the Siberian tiger subspecies never existed. I rely on Wikipedia daily for information, and I expect it to be accurate. But I have to say that certainly somebody with more Wiki experience than me has to undertake this project, and based on what I have read on this discussion page it needs to be someone with some Wiki-clout.
In postscript: I apologize for the excessive long entry, and my probable inability to format my entry properly (
Altalaya (
talk)
21:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)).
As I say in the Siberian tiger article, it is to early the make such big changes. There is just this document and as far I know no official opinion was emitted about this. So, the patience is a virtue, let's wait until the scientific community emit they opinion, like the case of the Malayan tiger. -- AmbaDarla ( talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The changes that I suggest are too extensive for me list them "X" and "Y". I think that we need the help of some experienced Wiki-editors who can revamp the Caspian tiger, Siberian tiger, and Tiger pages. There is currently a lot of inaccuracy on these three pages. I would also suggest separate pages for the numerous synonym names of tigers, that have a brief explanation of their relationship to their subspecies, a link to that page, along with any specific copy or photos that help to illuminate that local varietal. I would request that protection be extended to the Caspian tiger and Siberian tiger pages as well until these pages have been reestablished with accuracy in their basic information ( Altalaya ( talk) 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)).
Not done: The editsemiprotected template is just a way for someone to help you insert your changes into a semiprotected article. You have to detail the exact change. For less specific suggestions like these, engaging an interested editor on the talk page is probably the way to go. Celestra ( talk) 13:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
On the Tiger page:
1. In the taxo-box on the right the "historical distribution" graphic needs to be redone to include the historic range of Panthera tigris virgata. This should include connectivity through the upper and lower margins of the Taklamakan desert as per the above referenced study.
2. Under the heading Characteristics - "(as well as the ground coloration of the fur; for instance, Siberian tigers are usually paler than other tiger subspecies)" This should be changed to eliminate the reference to "subspecies". Just leaving it at "tigers" should do.
3. Under the heading "Subspecies": The Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), also known as the Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean or North China tiger, is confined to the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far eastern Siberia, where it is now protected. Considered the largest subspecies, with a head and body length of 190–230 cm (the tail of a tiger is 60–110 cm long) and an average weight of around 227 kg (500 lb) for males,[19] the Amur tiger is also noted for its thick coat, distinguished by a paler golden hue and fewer stripes. The heaviest wild Siberian tiger on record weighed in at 384 kg,[27] but according to Mazak these giants are not confirmed via reliable references.[15] Even so, a six-month old Siberian tiger can be as big as a fully grown leopard. The last two censuses (1996 and 2005) found 450–500 Amur tigers within their single, and more or less continuous, range making it one of the largest undivided tiger populations in the world. Genetic research in 2009 demonstrated that the Siberian tiger, and the western "Caspian tiger" (once thought to have been a separate subspecies that became extinct in the wild in the late 1950s[28][29]) are actually the same subspecies, since the separation of the two populations may have occurred as recently as the past century due to human intervention.[30]
The Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata), the last remnants being known as the Siberian, Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean or North China tiger, is now confined to the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far eastern Siberia, where it is protected. Considered the largest subspecies, with a head and body length of 190–230 cm (the tail of a tiger is 60–110 cm long) and an average weight of around 227 kg (500 lb) for males,[19] the Amur tiger is also noted for its thick coat, distinguished by a paler golden hue and fewer stripes. The heaviest wild Siberian tiger on record weighed in at 384 kg,[27] but according to Mazak these giants are not confirmed via reliable references.[15] Even so, a six-month old Siberian tiger can be as big as a fully grown leopard. The last two censuses (1996 and 2005) found 450–500 Amur tigers within their single, and more or less continuous, range making it one of the largest undivided tiger populations in the world. Genetic research in 2009 demonstrated that the Siberian tiger is one of a number of local variants of the subspecies "Caspian tiger" (Panthera tigris virgata) which was once thought to have been a separate subspecies that became extinct in the wild in the late 1950s[28][29]). The Siberian is thought to have been separated from the greater Caspian population as recently as the past century due to human intervention.[30]
4. In the taxo-box on the right, to be fair to the various nationalities that might feel a partiality to one subspecies of another that may be more affiliated with their country than another, I would suggest a picture of the South China tiger as the premier "tiger photo", as it seems to be the oldest tiger subspecies and the one from which all other current subspecies have sprung.
On the Siberian tiger page:
1. The Siberian tiger page now starts: The Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), also known as the Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean, North China or, Ussuri tiger. Though it once ranged throughout whole eastern Russia it is now completely confined to the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far eastern Siberia, where it is now protected. It is considered to be the biggest of the nine recent tiger subspecies and the largest living felid. Genetic research in 2009 revealed that the current Siberian tiger population is almost identical to the Caspian tiger, a now extinct western population once thought to have been a distinct subspecies.[2]
The Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), a synonym of the Caspian tiger subspecies (Panthera tigris virgata) also known as the Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean, North China or, Ussuri tiger. Though it once ranged throughout the whole of eastern Russia it is now completely confined to the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far south eastern Russia, where it is protected. Genetic research in 2009 revealed that the current Siberian tiger population is almost identical to the now extinct western population of the Caspian tiger. The Siberian once thought to have been a distinct subspecies is now understood to be the last surviving remnant of the once wide ranging Caspian tiger. It is the biggest of the recent tiger subspecies and the largest living feline.
2. The taxo-box on the right contains an erroneous scientific classification - the Siberian tiger is not a subspecies. The subspecies category should be "P. tigris virgata."
3. The taxo-box on the right gives the name Panthera tigris altaica as a trinomal name (in animals there is only one rank below species, and that is subspecies - all others are local variations or morphs); stating that varietal name is a trinomal name is absolutely incorrect, as it now known that there never was a subspecies "altaica", with Temmnick in 1884 naming a local variant as a subspecies (an honest mistake without the aid of DNA analyzation).
4. The taxo-box on the right, second graphic down is now in error; it should probably be a combination of both of the current graphics with the caption describing the original range of the entire subspecies - Panthera tigris virgata.
5. The taxo-box on the right synonym list is also certainly incorrect; it lists P. t. virgata as a synonym of the siberian tiger. That has to be corrected before one more school kid sees that. How did any Wiki editor ever read any source material and come up with that??? I have now read more than one article referencing this same study and they are all in agreement in their comments. The ICZN is very specific, Panthera tigris virgata was described first (1812) and is thus the official trinomal name of the subspecies - until we hear futher. Siberian in reference to tigers is now merely a synonym.
6. The rest of the article has components that were probably hijacked from what looks like a depleted Caspian tiger page, and there are incorrect references here and there throughout the lower body that seem to incorrectly indicate an unfounded preference for the name Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) as a true subspecies, when in fact published and accepted scientific analysis demonstrates that it is not a subspecies, only a local variant - a cornered remnant of the once wide ranging Caspian Tiger.
On the Caspian tiger page:
1. The Caspian tiger page now starts: The Caspian tiger (formerly Panthera Tigris Virgata), also known as the Persian tiger or Turanian tiger was the westernmost population of Siberian tiger, found in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Caucasus, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan until it apparently became extinct in the late 1950s, though there have been several alleged sightings of the tiger.[1] Though originally thought to have been a distinct subspecies, genetic research in 2009 proved that the animal was largely identical to the Siberian tiger.[2]
The Caspian tiger (Panthera Tigris Virgata), also known as the Persian tiger or Turanian tiger was the most wide ranging of extant tiger subspecies, found in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Caucasus, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, northern China, and eastern Russia. It was apparently hunted and pressured into near extinction throughout most of it's ranges in the late 1950s. The Siberian, Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean, North China or, Ussuri tiger, was originally thought to have been a distinct subspecies though genetic research in 2009 proved that the animal was largely identical to the Caspian tiger, thus the Caspian once thought to have been hunted into extinction lives on in this remnant.
2. There needs to be a taxo-box on the right, the same as found on the Siberian tiger and Tiger pages; it should include the proper scientific classification - with the subspecies category being "P. tigris virgata."
3. The taxo-box should include the requisite composite map that depicts the combined ranges of the P. t. virgata and P. t. altaica, and a map that depicts the current range of P. t. altaica labeled "Distribution of Siberian Tiger."
4. The taxo-box should include a list of synonyms - including the Siberian tiger, and it's previously attributed list of synonyms.
5. The rest of the article needs to be completely rewritten and reassembled to reflect the reality that P. t. virgata and P. t. altaica are one and the same, that the subspecies was first classified by Illiger in 1815 as P. t. virgata, was commonly known as the Caspian tiger, and that the last known population of this subspecies is known to exist in far southeastern Russia - the local synonym for the last tigers of this subspeices in their far eastern range is the Siberian tiger.
Thanks ( Altalaya ( talk) 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)).
I tried to google the subject but I couldn't find much useful info... Can it support an adult human's weight?
98.238.188.211 ( talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)uih8iuhbuihuyghyg
Written by Ajit Kumar. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.247.134.10 (
talk)
13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't: A tiger can ofcourse support the weight of a human being, but for the love of all that is rational don't try to ride one. It is liable to protest violently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.226.83 ( talk) 00:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Add Frosty the tiger!!!! Timothy the cat ( talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The Bengal tiger's scientific name is Panthera tigris tigris. The Bengal tiger is the species type, but it has been suggested that the tiger should be classified into just three subspecies. 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You are missing a subspecies. The Siberian (Amur) tiger is more closely related to the Bengal than it is, or was, to the Caspian. The Caspian tiger was Panthera tigris virgata. It has been suggested that the tiger should be reclassified into just three subspecies: The mainland Asian (Panthera tigris tigris), the Sunda Island tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae), and the West Asian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata). pg. 44 The Way Of The Tiger by K. Ullas Karanth 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 17:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing about this here: http:/www.savethetigerfund.org/Content/NavigationMenu2/Community/Tigersubspecies/CaspianTiger/default.htm Thank you for the reply. As far as I can determine the Caspian is still a recognized subspecies. 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please Remove them small article of HOw to remove the tiger skin as it cause a bad image to wike itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarsh.korath ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
to avoid fights which is an actually reason why house cats run away from dogs. They try to avoid confrontation as much as possible. Mcelite ( talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
"My Autosigned by SineBot-->
Well it has to be cited from a reliable source that shows that the fights do go both ways and that it is not biased. Mcelite ( talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
+1-- Altaileopard ( talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
For instance, russian scientist Kostoglod examined all reliable encounters (until 1977) and found that in 9 cases a brown bear has killed a tiger and in 11 cases the other way around.
Kostoglod V.E. Relations between Amur tiger and Brown and Black Asiatic Bears in the Primorsky region // Rare mammal species and their conservation. Moscow, "Nauka", 1977
Another modern scientist, I. Seredkin, has mentioned 12 known cases when a tiger was killed by a brown bear.
Seredkin, Ivan. The ecology, behavior, management and conservation status of brown bears in Sikhote-Alin (in Russian). Far Eastern National University, Vladivostok, Russia, pp. 1-252
There is no modern or historical evidence of male fully-grown brown bears killed by tigers. The largest one (see Geptner and Sludsky) is a 170 kg male adult bear which is far from being a big Ursus arctos lasiotus. Brown bears are also known to kill adult male tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.12.80 ( talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
page can not open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharohxz ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
THAT ALtaileopard link doesn´t prove anything ( it has no scientific reports for example) is biased and full with the participation of a tiger fan that posts there what he wants. Well, tiger wikipedia link is full of BIASED SUPOSITIONS too, by the way. Is a sad true, why tiger and cat fans destroy the reality and beauty of tigers and felines in general with fantasy stories and hoaxes.I work here with fauna too, I´m a researcher and a protectionist. We are trying to protect the iberian lynx btw. But let´s separate facts from preferences,please.
Is very well known that the biggest brown bear ever confirmedly killed by a siberian tiger was only a small brown bear with 170 kgs ( Kaplanov) ( Amur full grown male brown bears ( Ursus arctus lasiotus) stay at between 300-360kgs when over 15 years old).
Is very well known that, on the other hand, full grown male tigers were already reportedly killed and eaten by adult brown bears ( Kostoglod,Sysoev, and many others,reported that, I can provide more scientists names and reports for whoever wants it...).
People have a lot of overestimation on tigers, but lack a lot of scientific sense: First- anatomically, brown bears have denser bones, are stronger, have thick fur, much bigger stamina, than siberian tigers. Brown bear claws are no joke can reach 9 inch and teeth maybe not as long as tiger ones, when compared animals of around the same size. Though really big bears ( 1500 pounds or more) have bigger teeth and stronger bite.However bite strenght doesn´t matter for animals that use much paw strikes. And brown bears have much stronger paw striking. In californian pitfights, a grizzly bear killed male lions with few paw strikes ( I can provide the descriptions of that happening)and even bulls.
Tigers are agile ( but for that they have weaker bones), have strong paws, hook shape claws ( like polar bear and american black bear), strong bite and big teeth.
These are also excelent weapons. But let´s say a tiger with 500 or really big at 600 lbs, would have an hard time to fight with an adult full grown brown bear that can be on the 700, 800, 1000, 1500, or even over 2000 pounds mark ( very rarely).
Russian scientists gathered data of tigers taking brown bears, and only observed female and cub killings by tigers and one young male with 170 kgs ( with an half the size of a full grown bear....).
On the other hand and differently there are reports of brown bears killings and taking full grown male tigers (not to say many cubs and females).
Also siberian tigers are a part of the diet of brown bears ( or were because tigers are very rare now), because brown bears were already seen killing a tiger that defend his killing carcass and after eating the carcass start to eat also the tiger. ( I can give more info about this for whoever wants it).
Also there is some informations on Interspecies conflict link(
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/) and forum (
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/) ( on which is debatable who´s the ultimate predator for example or who has advantage on a fight) that´s runned by scientists, zoologists and experts, and they all agree that big bears ( brown and polar) have an advantage over tigers.
Some of them are cat specialists,by the way.
So I hope that the tiger wikipedia should refer this too, and not saying, with no backup, just that tigers take black and brown bears, whenever they want. These 8 % of their diet ( that´s only true if you gather both brown and black bear) and regarding brown bears is only for juvenile and small bears, show a false pretending in favor of tigers. So this wikipedia sound like an hoax for every scientist, I´m really sorry. Tigers are also part of the menu of brown bears but is stupid to argue that they are part of their diet. Both species have more rather territory dispute than properly a prey-predator relationship, of course, specially when we talk about adults relations. The defecation act on the kills is made by both species which clearly indicates a dispute not a stupid joke like some say of prey-predator relation...
So do as you wish. Interestingly, is that there are more than one tiger wikipedia, each one show different facts, as the same for bears. And contradiction is vulgar on all of them. So we should believe in which?? I believe in scientific reports, I´m afraid... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.174.37.201 (
talk)
18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes that sounds very scientific SineBot. Powley ( talk) 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A bear can kill a person with just one full paw swipe, I don´t care if a tiger kill a person in seconds... Irrelevant. A brown bear isn´t a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 ( talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Now is impossible to edit this joke of wikipedia informations...LOL. So you tiger or cat fans jokes now must feel really happy... LOL. Interestingly is that your joke about tigers and bears is denied by several web links. So people find your info somewhat biased, not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 ( talk) 03:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This is all very interesting but has nothing to do with improving the article. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Any further discussion on this should be taken off-Wiki. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, as much as it is true that the biggest male tigers are about 100 pounds heavier than the biggest male lions (400 vs. 500 pounds) one should not forget to mention that tigers live in colder countries and that therefore they are quite adipose compared to lions as they are made almost solely of muscles and bones. And also one should mention the dense mane is a superb protection of the endangered neck and throat area. Tigers have a naked neck and lack this protection. Regarding all this a male lion is much stronger and a better fighter than a male tiger. -- Mustafa Mustamann ( talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, biggest of tigers can out grow biggest of lions by 150 to 200 pounds. Secondly most tigers live in India and India is a very hot place. Bangal Tigers are like lions build in muscles and bones. Amur tigers have thick fat laylers. So, your argument that tigers are adipose is false. I think you have never seen a tiger-versus-tiger fight. They usually fight to the end. And who said that lions are stronger than tiger. Tiger are symbol of power for a reason and that's because they are very, very powerful and much stronger than lions. So in an epic battle between an adult male tiger and adult male lion, the tiger would win but the fight would be really close and to the end. Upol007 ( talk) 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Male lion is called king of the jungle he dosn't even live in the jungle; they live in grass lands. The male tiger is the biggest of all the big cats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.15.160 ( talk) 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, in fact the male tiger is the biggest cat found in the wild, but the biggest cat of all is the Liger. They can weigh as much as 1000 lbs, twice as much as a very big lion Upol007 ( talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not a real species though. So it doesn´t count as it doesn´t occur naturally in the wild. It's rather a human-made experiment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.183.20.76 ( talk) 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed interesting to know who the winner of this big fight would be but considering some research I did, the tiger would win most of the time. In fact, the only time the lion was a winner was in a unfair male lion vs. tigrees fight and even then it bearly won (thanks to its big mane). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.93.76 ( talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
SOME MORE ARGUMET:
Largest lion in the wild -- 690 lbs. [male man-eater shot dead in Africa]
Largest Siberian [Amur] tiger in the wild -- 840 pounds
Largest Bengal tiger in the wild -- 870 pounds
Largest lion in captivity -- named Simba. It weighed it at more than 820 ponds
Largest tiger held in captivity -- forgot its name. Was of the Siberian subspecies and had a mass of about 1,024 pounds.
So, I hope a good idea is created -
TIGER IS THE STRONGER FIGHTER
! - --
96.232.63.175 (
talk)
23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I am loving seeing people try to outright throw it down. Please don't state things as fact and pretend like you actually know what you are talking about. This is all theory. And there has been discussion about size. First of all that is not all that matters especially when there are other contributing factors TO size (and otherwise for that matter) such as climate and fat content. Carrying on- to people who say Bengal Tigers are heavier (which they are, BTW)...150-227 KG for a male lion...180-248 KG for a male Bengal Tiger. (except in colder climates where they will have more FAT) Powley ( talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC).
To me tigers are mysterious,dangerous,adorable, and the most awesome animal in the world.
Well if you knew as much as I did about tigers you would know that as cubs their fathers will sometimes attack and possibly even kill their cubs just because of pure jealousy...of course if the mother were to interfere then they would die as well...
Because of their beautiful coats they are able to hide in their environment....but are also hunted because of it...of the many types of tigers 5 are extinct just because of this...and now all of the tigers are highly close to being extinct...they are very endangered.
I'm sure those have heard that there are people that tearing down trees...where if you look at it over 3 billion species live...including the tiger in these areas...this is why the zoos have been taking special care of them and why there are secret locations on where they are trying to regain the loss of tigers.
Many people in China have a belief that various tiger parts have medicinal properties killing them for purposes of medicine. There is no proof to support these beliefs. The use of tiger parts medicine use in China is already banned, and the government has made it clear that if they were to be caught this would be punishable by death. This has been banned in China since 1993. Still, there are a number of tiger farms in the country where they are breeding the cats for MONEY. It is estimated that between 4000 and 5000 captured, wild animals live in these farms today.China's wealthy businessmen are known to eat tiger penis as they feel it is a must do thing.
As you can see some people are sick...truly sick...but its in there heritage and though we have laws,there is somehow still animal cruelty and there is nothing we can do as hard as we try...fortunately there are people who but their lives in danger not only by being around these ferocious cats but because people are still hunting them and yet as they put their lives in danger they take care of these big cats and usually create a special bond with them appears...
Nominated 2008-02-01;
Support:
Comments:
Just in case it's useful, my sister is a tiger expert at ZSL. I'd be happy to contact her to try to get pointers to sources needed, if that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. I love tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo81001 ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know how tigers can live but it is not written in the article. Is their average life span comparable to the average life span of lions? -- Tubesship ( talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The record for a tiger living in captivity is 26 years. Lions can live up to 35 years. 20 is extremely old for a tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I think that poor old lion in Kabul Zoo lived to be 38. He was born in a German zoo. PLEASE DO MODIFY THIS! DONT MIND THE RED TEXT SAYING DON'T!
It says, "The heaviest wild Siberian tiger on record weighed in at 985 kg..." but according to the Record's World Book, the largest male of this sub- species surpassed the 1,000-pound mark, which was almost 20 years old and held in captivity. Should we check this and maybe have some cleanup or additional info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.93.76 ( talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that this paragraph should be deleted : "Nimer" (tiger) is a common Arabic male first name,[85] fulfilling a similar function (i.e. calling a man by the name of a strong and powerful animal) as "lion" names such as Leon, Leo or Leonard in various European languagues.
since "Nimer" is not the arabic name for tiger, thats a common mistake most people make, the name Nimer means Leopard in arabic, the true arabic name for tiger is actually "Babr", thats the same as the persian name. Nimer comes from an arabic adjective "Anmar" or "Nimar" which means spotted, which in turn refers to the leopard ( check the arabian leopard sceintefic name ). The arab first knew the tigers from north iraq and from their trades with india, they couldn't have possibly called it nimer since the name doesn't describe it as it is.. I just wanted to make this point clear, thanks. MoeFe ( talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a tiger fan and I really like these animals a lot. So, my goal is to make this article a featured article, but I'd need some help to identify the weaker parts of this article, what should be done to feature it.-- 71.190.82.81 ( talk) 21:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I was checking out some older versions of this article, and i have to say that great things are done here. Before it sounded so bad, really! Today, it flows so well. However, I noticed some videos at the end of the old article, which can also be used here.-- 96.232.61.201 ( talk) 01:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted all of the descriptions from the subspecies list, and then put a table in the physical characteristics section, with the lengths, weights and descriptions of each of the subspecies.
Also, I took the weights and lengths from "Tiger Territory", www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger. I don't like using a single source (particularly from the internet) but I thought this was best for consistency, and the site is a pretty good resource. I've referenced the website.
So...what do you think of the changes? I'm not very experienced with using tables on wikipedia, so please clean it up if you think it looks too messy. Alphard08 ( talk) 08:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
this is true facts.as cubs of most big cats grow older, the colour of their eyes changes from blue to yellow. i've been searching on wikipedia, but only to found this fact is true after doing some own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.152.21 ( talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
White tigers do not have crossed eyes because of inbreeding. In 40 years I have never heard of a single case of a white tiger having a cleft palate, have you? Golden tabby tigers carry the white gene. They are usually born in litters which have white tiger cubs. If inbreeding caused white tigers to have crossed eyes orange tigers born in the same litters as white tigers would also have crossed eyes. White tigers have been reported from the wild in the Siberian tiger subspecies as well as the Bengal, according to Richard Perry writing in "The World Of The Tiger." He said that white tigers were found in northern China and Korea. White tigers are also part of the folklore in Java and Sumatra so they must have existed there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.5 ( talk) 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS Richard Perry's book is one of the sources for the Tiger wikipedia article.
Cross eyed white tigers occur only in captivity, and are generally all descended from a specimen kept in a harem two centuries ago. White cubs can occur in normal, wild litters, its just that the zoo specimens all descend from very limited captive bred stock. Dark hyena ( talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Actually being descended from a small captive stock has nothing to do with it. If it did orange siblings of white tigers would also be cross eyed. The crossed eyes are directly linked to the white gene. White tigers have a visual pathway abnormality. This causes some to be cross eyed. Read the white tiger wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider the bigcatrescue website credible. Do you have any other source for a white tiger having a cleft palate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC) The bigcatrescue website does'nt seem very accurate. If that's your only source I must conclude there is no record a white tiger having a cleft palate. That website is the worst.
Thank you for this. I will go back and look. I do not recall anything in Tigers Of The World about a white tiger having a cleft palate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at the bigcatrescue website and it says that 80% of white tigers are stillborn ! This is absolute rubbish. This is why I don't consider them credible. I have also never heard of any other white tiger having a deformed face and there are around 600 white tigers in captivity now. There is nothing typical about a white tiger having a deformed face. The bigcatrescue website also says that white tigers have an 80% infant mortality so I wonder which is it-80% stillborn or an 80% infant mortality. Either way it's untrue.
The other website you mentioned only refers to cleft palates in "Corbett's tiger", not in a white tiger.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I know we've spent enough time on this, and you've been kind enough to indulge me, but I had a look at the wikipedia article on cleft palates and it says that cleft palates occur in one in 600 births. By coincidence there are estimated to be 600 white tigers alive in the world. That would mean that if there is one white tiger with a cleft palate (and I'm not convinced there is one) that's exactly what should be expected if it has nothing to do with inbreeding, just like the crossed eyes have nothing to do with inbreeding. I don't think that white tigers are any more inbred than purebred dogs, but since they do tend to be inbred there should be a lot more white tigers with cleft palates if that was caused by inbreeding. At one time the Sumatran tigers in North American zoos were more inbred than white tigers. They were all descended from a single pair-I think at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The Amur tigers in zoos are also inbred and I suspect that the wild Amur tigers are also inbred.
I also wonder whether that white tiger with the deformed face (Kenny) may not have that deformity because of poor nutrition or a severe injury rather than inbreeding. Since white tigers are inbred why would'nt there be more white tigers with deformed faces? Why just one out of 600? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but all of the other physical defects you list are well documented. There is no record of any white tiger ever having a cleft palate with the possible exception of Kenny. I think if white tigers had cleft palates Tigers Of The World would have mentioned it. Tiger Of The World does mention a single case of a white tiger having central retinal degeneration. It was a male white tiger in the Milwaukee County Zoo. There's no mention of white tigers having cleft palaltes from any credible source. The figure I gave for white tigers-600-is the estimate of how many are alive today. You could add to that all of the white tigers which have ever been born in captivity and it would be hundreds more, and there's still no record of even one having a cleft palate, again with the possible exception of Kenny, who does'nt live at Big Cat Rescue. Big Cat Rescue's own white tiger is normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you've already told me why 1 in 600 cannot be a reliable estimate, and to be honest I did'nt realize we were having an argument. I thought this was a friendly discussion. My mistake. I have looked at lists of every physical defect of every single white tiger ever born in captivity over the past fifty years. I had already done this long before you made your suggestion. I am sure you can guess that cleft palates are not on any list. That was kind of my point from the very beginning. It has never been my intention to engage in an argument with you. If I had known this was an argument, as opposed to a friendly conversation, I would never have answered, because it would'nt be worth my time. Believe me I have no interest in having an argument either, with you or anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.5 ( talk) 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) PS I have been in contact with many tiger experts, although not recently.
I'm not sure where to begin here. I have never heard of brachyphaly in a white tiger before. (I've never heard of brachyphaly before.) If that refers to the "bull dog" face I have read about that on the white tiger wikipedia article and on Sarah Hartwell's messy beast website. I don't recall if that expression was used, but brachyphaly does'nt appear on the lists I've seen either. I am admitting of course that I don't know whether Kenny has a cleft palate. I was entertaining the possibility that he might and that he may be the only white tiger on record with a cleft palate. I did'nt know that Zabu was missing her upper lip and had a cleft palate. I have'nt read everything on their website. By the bull dog face you are refering to Kenny's deformity, but how do we know it was present from birth and was'nt caused by an accident? Kenny was given to another sanctuary by a private breeder. They would only know what the private breeder chose to tell them. You may well be right about Kenny. It's also possible that that private breeder has white tigers which are far more inbred than most. I just know there have been hundreds of inbred white tigers without deformed faces or missing upper lips. I think the bigcatrescue website describes Kenny as "typical", when he is anything but. There's also a Dr. Laughlin associated with Big Cat Rescue. He spent a year in prison and six months in a halfway house for stealing five white tiger cubs from the Hawthorn Circus. There are so many ridiculous assertions on that website. I think it says that all white tigers are cross eyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) By the way I think you mentioned white tigers having kidney problems. Kidney problems are endemic to big cats in general and not to white tigers in particular. And I think that selective breeding has virtually iliminated crossed eyes in white tigers and Siamese cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages. I know there are still cross eyed white tigers. There's one in a zoo in Hawaii. I mean't it has been eliminated in some bloodlines. It depends on who's doing the breeding. Kidney problems are common in big cats. How old was Chester when he died? I'll bet he was a ripe old age. Did you know that he fathered the first test tube tiger? That was in the United States before he became the first white tiger in Australia. He came from the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC) PS Somewhere I read that a majority of the Siamese cat "founders" were cross eyed, so the situation has been improved. There are several breeds derived from the Siamese which, as far as I know, are never cross eyed, like the Himalayan and rag doll etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I could'nt find anything about Chester dying on the internet, but his brother lived to be 18 at the Washington DC Zoo, which is a really good age for a male, and had no kidney problems. http://www.nbc4.com/news/1700325/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC) They called him Taj, but his real name was Panghur Ban. I had a conversation with John Cuneo, the owner of the Hawthorn Circus, a while back and he told me that they have very few cross eyed white tigers, and that these are amongst the oldest they have. They have bred this trait out of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
In the National Geographic documentary "Keepers Of The Wild" they showed an old Amur tigress in the San Francisco Zoo which had to be put to sleep because of kidney problems. I was told by a volunteer at the Toronto Zoo years ago that white tigers have kidney problems, but I have yet to find anything in print which confirms this. I have been told that it's untrue that white tigers have kidney problems (more than big cats in general.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that came from K.S. Sankhala's book Tiger ! I think abnormal kidneys would have been caused by inbreeding, and Chester was not inbred. He was bred from unrelated parents. His father was a white tiger named Ranjit from the US National Zoo and his mother was an orange tigress named Obie who lived at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha. She was roughly half Amur tiger and half Bengal. She was a second generation hybrid and he (Ranjit) was a registered Bengal tiger.
I just read that cleft palates in cats are caused by a vitamin A deficiency during development rather than genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just saw your message. It was in The Siamese Cat A Complete Owner's Manual by Marjorie McCann Collier, Barron's 1992. I am having trouble keeping this on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"A defect that can be accommodated until a time that surgery can be performed is cleft palate. In some species cleft palate appears to be a genetic defect; in cats it can be caused by insufficient vitamin A during development."
I was looking at Siamese kittens in the pet shop the other day and it appeared as though any of them which looked in my direction were slightly cross eyed. I wonder if they all are. I think the visual pathway abnormality is more pronounced in Siamese cats than it is in white tigers. I was also noticing how they all had dark colored noses. That's one of the places where the cold makes the fur darker in Siamese cats. I've noticed that white lions seem to have darker fur on the nose also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Lion tamer Clyde Beatty said that whenever there was a fight between a tiger and a lion the lion never won. That's from his book "Facing The Big Cats".
Golden tabby tigers all carry the white gene. They are intermediate between white and orange. They probably result from the combination of the orange gene with the stripeless white gene.
I don't think that what you're saying is correct, or that any other gene is involved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The second one is identical to the white tiger wikipedia article. I mean the nationmaster one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 15:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Down here I was'nt dismissing your sources. I was just making the observation that the second one was the same as the wikipedia. I just thought that was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no section on the Bornean tiger? i.e. Meijing, Erick. The Bornean tiger, speculation on its existence. Cat News 1999 Spring:-30:12-15 ISSN: 1027-2992 Descriptors: tigers, Panthera tigris, possible native species in Borneo, introduction at some point, discussion of reports, validity of sightings, Borneo. There used to be a lot of information on this topic on the 5 Tigers website. They had photographs of tiger skins from Borneo.
It seems that the 5 Tigers website no longer has information about the Bornean tiger unless I'm looking in the wrong place. The Time Life Nature book on Asia says something about the Bornean tiger and a fossil tooth. What is the scientific name of the Bornean tiger? If it went extinct that recently it should be mentioned with the other subspecies. Peter Matthiessen, writing in "Tigers in the Snow", said that tigers may have disappeared from Borneo, despite it's being good tiger habitat, because of the absence of deer. He said that deer were only recently introduced to the island. Of course he means after the tiger disappeared. If people are seeing tigers on Borneo today maybe they are swimming from Sumatra. He did'nt say that last thing I was just speculating. I believe that there are also fossil tigers from Sakhalin Island, Japan, and Beringia. That's probably in Tigers Of The World. There are also supposed to be fossil tigers from Java which are very large, from tigers which were not ancestral to the modern Javan tiger. I can't remember where I read that. On the subject of the Javan tiger I believe there was at least one in the Budapest Zoo in the 1970s, but it may have turned out to be a Sumatran tiger. It's possible that tigers lived in North America and that some tiger fossils have been mistaken for lion fossils. There are some amazing old black and white photographs of Javan tigers in the Berlin Zoo in Tigers In The Snow. I tried to find you a copy of the article online by putting IUCN Cat News into the search engines, but apparently you have to be a member: http://www.catsg.org/catnews/index.htm
I've made a few changes to the tiger article recently. One of them, however, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do - in "territorial behaviour", I've quoted a paragraph from one of my sources (and referenced it accordingly). Is this actually allowed? If not, I'll delete it immediately. Alphard08 ( talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This is from Louis S.B. Leakey, writing in "Animals Of East Africa" in 1969: "In 1957 we found the largest fossil jaw of a felid yet recorded from the gorge, and its shape is more like a present day tiger's than the lion's." "The jaw of a tiger rests with a three point contact on a table, while the jaw of a lion has the lower margin curved like the rockers of a rocking chair so that if you put it on a flat surface you can tilt it back and forth easily. Our fossil mandible from upper Bed II stays as steady as a tiger's on our laboratory table. This does not mean however that the big cat of Olduvai was striped like a modern tiger. It may have been, but naturally we cannot be sure." pgs. 162-163 (I think this may have turned out to be a saber tooth tiger.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a book in the references to the white tiger wikipedia titled "Der Tiger" by Mazak. There's something else by him included in the references to this article. Vratislav Mazak was or is a Czech taxonomist, who asserted the status of the Bali tiger as a distinct subspecies. He discovered cranial variiations like a narrower occipital plane, which in theory distinguish the Bali tiger from the Javan subspecies. I don't know if this would be worth mentioning in the article. The Indo-Chinese tiger was not recognized until 1968, which means that up to that point Indo-Chinese tigers were regarded as Bengal tigers.
I found where I read the stuff about the fossil tiger from Java. It is in Tigers in the Snow by Peter Matthiessen. He said that the Japanese tiger was the same size as other island tigers. It was extinct already when people arrived in Japan. Fossil tigers from Java were as large or larger than any modern race (like most fossil tigers) and it is generally believed was not the ancestor of the modern Javan tiger. There are also fossil tigers from Lyakhov Island off the northern coast of Siberia. During the ebb and flow of the glaciers the tiger reached Sakhalin Island, Japan, and Borneo (where the Bisaya tribe still prize its few teeth, claiming their ancestors hunted them as recently as two or three centuries ago.)He also says that the tiger may have reached Alaska, but there is no fossil evidence of this. He said that there is no record of there ever having been a Bali tiger in captivity. There were Javan tigers in zoos until the end of WWII. After that it became easier to acquire Sumatran tigers for zoos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I've read that in places where tigers are'nt bothered by people they are diurnal and start living in prides like lions. There was an article in the Journal Of The Bombay Natural History Society about a tiger and a leopard, which were friends, and used to share kills.
I have an account, but I'm nervous using it in a library because I'm afraid I'll forget to log out and I thought this article was locked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I'm trying to find out whether the Bornean tiger has a scientific name. I wrote a letter to Ron Tilson and I sent an e-mail to another tiger expert at a zoo in Washington state. I might be able to do some work on the article, but not today.
The opening sentence of the article states that the tiger is the biggest and the most powerful of the cats. What data are you using to varify the "most powerful" part? In all due respect, but I don't see how you can say that? What is the proof? Lions have been known to drag buffalo and giraffe. What is the scale used here to justify calling the tiger "the most powerful"? Size? On average the tiger doesn't have more than 40 lbs of a weight advantage and most of it is fat. Tigers have a thincker layer of fat (especially the Siberians), hence the slightly heavier weight. The skeletons and muscle mass are the same for the two cats. I would suggest that you remove the "most powerful" part as it can't be confirmed in any scientific way. Is this a credible article or a ZooBook? 63.161.203.11 ( talk) 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Where is the evidence of that? No, not a quote from a site or a book. Show me at least ONE picture of a tiger and a gaur together. Just because there are a few shots of a tiger eating a gaur does not mean it killed a gaur. There are tons of images and videos of lions eating elephants. That's not always an actual kill. The animal could've been sick, injured, old, etc. Same with Tigers and Gaurs. There are pictures and clips of them hunding deer, but never a gaur. So, until there is some factual evidence, I don't think it should be listed in the article. 63.161.203.11 ( talk) 22:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)There was an article in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society about a tiger attacking an elephant.
There now.
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/hunting6.html
http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot631.jpg
Images taken by Shri Vikram Singh Parihar. Belsavis , 6 April 2009
"This is probably one of rarest pictures in this book. Kublai, the resident male, the Nalghati tigress and her two cubs all share a tiny pool of water, cooling off on a hot May evening. For centuries male tigers have been regarded as a threat to young cubs, but in all three families we observed, we saw the male tiger sharing his food, partaking of the tigress's and cubs food, nuzzling the cubs and generally keeping a protective eye on them. After Nalghati left the pool, Kublai spent nearly an hour playing with the cubs. This is the first photographic record of tiger and tigress and cubs together in natural conditions." Pg. 43 Tigers: The Secret Life by Valmik Thapar, Elm Tree Books London 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"Recent studies by Sandra Herrington of skulls from eastern Beringia (modern-day Alaska) now suggest that both tigers and lions were present there within the past 100,000 years during the last glaciation." Pg. 74 The Big Cats And Their Fossil Relatives by Alan Turner, Columbia University Press, N.Y. 1997. That "African tiger" did turn out to be a saber tooth tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.150 ( talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Tigress-Jowlagiri.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Recent work on genetic and craniometric substructure in tigers has shown that fine scale analysis does match the recognized sub-species (1, 2).
It appears that the Siberian tiger is the most distinct of the mainland races, but overlaps with the now extinct Caspian sub-species in terms of cranial morphology. In turn, the Caspian tiger overlaps with the other mainland types, who differ from each other on average, but also overlap heavily (2). The Siberian/Caspian tiger connection is also clear when looking at Mitochondrial DNA (3). Samples taken from preserved remains of Caspian tigers show that they share a major mtDNA haplotype with Siberian tigers, and thus a very recent history. It appears that tigers colonised central Asia at most 10,000 years ago, and the modern Siberian stock may be the result of a few Caspian tigers subsequently wandering east via northern Asia (3).
The Indonesian island tigers appear to be quite different from the mainland races in terms of cranial matrics, but very similar to each other (2). Also, in 2008, genetic testing of Javan and Bali tigers was still in preliminary stages, but initial results showed that it was quite difficult to distinguish between the three Indonesian sub-species based on mtDNA markers(4).
1. Shu-Jin Luo, 2008, Subspecies Genetic Assignments of Worldwide Captive Tigers Increase Conservation Value of Captive Populations.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(08)00434-X
2. Ji H. Mazák, 2008, Craniometric variation in the tiger (Panthera tigris): Implications for patterns of diversity, taxonomy and conservation.
doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2008.06.003
3. Carlos Driscoll.(January 2008). Caspian tiger phylogeography.
http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/semsched/details/carlos_%20abstracts_jan2008.pdf
4. Letter from the extant/extinct tiger project to a sample donor, freely available on the web.
http://iceagetiger.com/tiger.pdf
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpwes ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
That opening sentence has fanbois written all over it. Does ANY other article on Wikipedia describes an animal like that? Do you have the "largest and the strongest" on the polar bear page? Or a great white shark page? This is so petty! You can not accurately tell me that the tiger is legitimately "stronger" than a lion. No scientific data supports that. Did the two paw wrestle and the tiger won?! You're talk about a species here. "Largest" is also debatable as I wrote out in the previous post. Please change the opening statement. It should be take into account that ONLY the Nepal Bengal tiger AVERAGES heavier than the lion. The lion is also longer and taller. So you should used the word "heavest" not "largest". I think the opening sentence of the article should read, "The tiger (Panthera tigris) is a member of the Felidae family that reaches the heaviest weight measurments among the four "big cats" in the genus Panthera." 63.161.203.11 ( talk) 18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have provided some information about the prey taken by each cat in the Lion discussion. By the way, this argument is seriously not worth getting so steamed up over - really, there are more important things in life to be arguing about. And there's no call to insult each other either.
Pgecaj: You may well be right when you say that the tiger is the most powerful of all felines living in the wild (although not of all cats - ligers are much bigger, after all...). I wouldn't be surprised either way. However, until I see some good, scientific evidence, I'd rather this statement not be in the opening sentence of the article, since most sources that have stated this "fact" tend to be rather unscientific, and one that is (supposedly) scientific comes up with measurements of the lion and tiger's strength that don't really seem to tally with reality.
Consider this abstract by Samuel Haughton:
"IN NATURE, vol. xii., p. 474, in a review of Dr. Fayrer's book on the tiger, doubts are thrown by the reviewer on the statement that the tiger is stronger than the lion. Dr. Fayrer's statement cannot be contradicted by any person well acquainted with both animals. In my book on ``Animal Mechanics, published in 1873, I have proved, p. 392, that the strength of the lion in the fore limbs is only 69.9 per cent. of that of the tiger, and that the strength of his hind limbs is only 65.9 per cent. of that of the tiger."
Unfortunately, I could not view the actual text, so I don't know what methods Samuel used to reach this conclusion. However, I was a little alarmed by the final figures, for three reasons:
1) How did he get so precise a measurement of the strength of a lion compared to a tiger, ie. down to point one of a percent? The strengths of animals may vary quite considerably from individual to individual within a species, so it's highly unlikely that we could actually pinpoint the strength of one species compared to another so precisely, since the error bars and uncertainty would be fairly substantial.
2) What subspecies of lion and tiger are we talking about here? What sex were the animals?
3) Suppose he's right, and the lion has, say, only 66% of the strength of the tiger in its hind limbs. Now, tigers have been reported making horizontal leaps of up to 10 metres. Logically, a lion, which weighs little less than a tiger, should only be able to make a leap of up to about 6.6 metres, if it only has two thirds of the strength of the tiger in its hindlimbs.
However, just look at these accounts in Walker's Mammals of the World, for the tiger and lion respectively:
Tiger
"It has been reported to cover up to 10 metres in a horizontal leap." (page 825)
Lion
"Leaps of up to 12 metres have been reported." (page 832)
Walker's Mammals of the World is recognised by many to be a very good resource. Even allowing for a bit of exaggeration, it is still apparent that the lion can probably leap at least as far as the tiger, so how can it possibly have only two thirds of the tiger's strength in its hind legs?
This is precisely the kind of discrepancy that really bothers me in this type of discussion, and thus the reason why I'd rather delete the "strongest" part of the first sentence of this article, until it can be properly verified.
Also, I am aware that it's usual to equate "heaviest" with "largest". However, I see nothing wrong with being as specific as possible, and thus I don't think this article has to follow the convention. Alphard08 ( talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I edited the changes made by one of the editors from the lion's article. After making the article in word featured, he came here scandalizing this article.
I inverted his edit by restating that the tiger is the largest and the most powerful of all cats, as opposed to simply heaviest. I did that for several reasons. One being the fact that almost all reputable sources accept the idea of the tiger being the largest and strongest. I's almost impossible to open a book about tigers or large cats and not see the words LARGEST and STRONGEST used to the tiger's credit. The same the thing can be said for documentaries. And there's a good reason for that.
First of all, allow me to justify the use of the term "largest" in this article. Tigers weigh up to 660 lbs. No other cats can be that heavy.
Also, tigers measure up to 13 feet. No lions can be that long.
The lions is only slightly taller, but it is to mention that has more to do with the fact that the lion keeps his head up when walking while the tiger walks head-down style. Plus, lion height is measure including the mane!!
Moreover, in zoology the term largest is almost always means heaviest -- it's just more formal to use. If height mattered so much, then I guess we all are wrong to call the elephant the largest land mammal. Isn't the giraffe like much taller, yet a lion being 1 inch or 2 taller than the tigers, all of sudden, is all it matters. Furthermore, when it comes "larger" components, the lion is taller, that's it, while the tiger is heavier, longer, and more voluminous. So, it's 3 components for the tiger versus one for the lion. And ... height at the shoulder has no significance on the animals size overall - it's basically just the length of the forelimbs. We consider total length (nose to tail) and weight.
Now, as for "the most powerful". This so simply... if the power of two nearly identically-built animals is measured, the larger is always (almost always, just to fade off speculation) the more powerful. That would be the tiger with more muscle mass! This is a law of physics and cannot be ignored. We can challenge theories, but not laws.
Plus, tigers have much thicker legs even proportionally, which is likely to make a tiger more powerful even pound per pound.-- Pgecaj ( talk) 20:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
"A display of "strength" (e.g. lifting a weight) is a result of three factors that overlap: physiological strength (muscle size, cross sectional area, available crossbridging, responses to training), neurological strength (how strong or weak is the signal that tells the muscle to contract), and mechanical strength (muscle's force angle on the lever, moment arm length, joint capabilities)."
1) Using a series of tests to obtain a numerical value of the "strength" of various parts of each animals (ie, forelimbs, hindlimbs, shoulders, etc...)
2) Demonstrate that the tiger can perform a feat of strength that the lion is conclusively shown to be incapable of performing.
I found this website with clear pictures showing a tiger with a live gaur. The gaur is brought down and likely paralized by the large chunk of meat bitten off of it. If don't already have the website listed along the other sources, here's the link http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/hunting6.html
"Adult brown bears are known for killing and driving off adult male tigers." Please where is the evidence to suggest such a thing? Brown bears—most certainly—will avoid male tiger as much as possible, while the latter have been known to kill bears up to 800 pounds head-to-head; in fact, according to tiger researchers, such as Mazak, attacks on adult bears are more common than people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.49.31 ( talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) At least one evidence is written here: 1972 r.Komissarovka, Pogranichny, killed by bear
http://tigers.ru/articles/tab_eng.html#tab1
There is another case which heppened is Sikhote-Alin (1960).
Male brown bears do not avoid tigers. No scientfic source confirms "bears up to 800 pounds" killed by the tiger. You repeat a well-known internet hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.12.34 ( talk) 12:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Lions have manes which protect against any attack to the neck and have stronger forelimbs+ taller body+ more experienced. Tigers are stronger, quicker and bigger.
I'd say that a bengal tiger vs african lion- the tiger would just grab a victory. However, the Barbary lion, which is now severely endangered should be able to beat a bengal tiger quite easily. It is the same size as the bengal tiger so it has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages. Not to mention it also has a thicker mane which also runs down its stomach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britain999 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
NO, we are not gonna continue this - it doesn't have any importance relating to the article, but if you ask me, I think the tiger would most likely win. -- Pgecaj ( talk) 04:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the Barbary lion had reached the size of the Bengal tiger. Actually Mazák state that the size of this subspecies was about the same that the east African lions. The mane is just a sexual and health sign. Be careful with these comments.-- AmbaDarla ( talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"Adult brown bears are known for killing and driving off adult male tigers." Please where is the evidence to suggest such a thing? Brown bears—most certainly—will avoid male tiger as much as possible, while the latter have been known to kill bears up to 800 pounds head-to-head; in fact, according to tiger researchers, such as Mazak, attacks on adult bears are more common than people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.49.31 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) At least one evidence is written here: 1972 r.Komissarovka, Pogranichny, killed by bear
http://tigers.ru/articles/tab_eng.html#tab1 There is another case which heppened is Sikhote-Alin (1960).
Male brown bears do not avoid tigers. No scientfic source confirms "bears up to 800 pounds" killed by the tiger. You repeat a well-known internet hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.12.34 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Tigers will easily get killed by a brown bear of any size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britain999 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I am reading "My India" by the famed hunter Jim Corbett. At the end of the third paragraph in Chapter 1 he says: "...as tigers have no sense of smell." Is this correct? Indianscoop ( talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
They do have quite a decent sense of smell (they leave scent marks to communicate with each other, for example). What Jim Corbett meant was that the tiger's sense of smell is pretty much irrelevant as far as stalking tigers is concerned. Unlike, for example, bears, wolves or deer, who rely primarily on their sense of smell to detect danger, one can approach a tiger regardless of wind direction. Belsavis ( talk) 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is my first contribution to the world of Wikipedia so please bear with me, and in light of much of what I have read on this discussion page alone: Please be polite to me, assume my good faith, avoid attacking me personally, and be welcoming.
I am concerned with this general article on tigers and with the articles on the Siberian/Amur tiger (P. t. altaica) and Caspian Tiger (P. t. virgata). Quoting an open source that I found cited on this very page (
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004125), recent research involving mitochondrial molecular genetics seems to be uncovering possible historic errors made in taxonomic subspecies definitions:
The article goes on to describe how these new research results seem to indicate that that the Siberian subspecies is genetically so close to the Caspian subspecies as for them to be considered one and the same:
The article concludes that in light of this new information there was a historical mistake in designating a new subspecies for the extant population found in far eastern Russia; in fact there never was a Siberian tiger subspecies.
I would be most certainly in favor of keeping the Siberian Tiger subspecies page as many people will be looking to find a "Siberian tiger" page for years to come, but facts are facts; the Caspian tiger is still alive in far eastern Russia and the Siberian tiger subspecies never existed. I rely on Wikipedia daily for information, and I expect it to be accurate. But I have to say that certainly somebody with more Wiki experience than me has to undertake this project, and based on what I have read on this discussion page it needs to be someone with some Wiki-clout.
In postscript: I apologize for the excessive long entry, and my probable inability to format my entry properly (
Altalaya (
talk)
21:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)).
As I say in the Siberian tiger article, it is to early the make such big changes. There is just this document and as far I know no official opinion was emitted about this. So, the patience is a virtue, let's wait until the scientific community emit they opinion, like the case of the Malayan tiger. -- AmbaDarla ( talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The changes that I suggest are too extensive for me list them "X" and "Y". I think that we need the help of some experienced Wiki-editors who can revamp the Caspian tiger, Siberian tiger, and Tiger pages. There is currently a lot of inaccuracy on these three pages. I would also suggest separate pages for the numerous synonym names of tigers, that have a brief explanation of their relationship to their subspecies, a link to that page, along with any specific copy or photos that help to illuminate that local varietal. I would request that protection be extended to the Caspian tiger and Siberian tiger pages as well until these pages have been reestablished with accuracy in their basic information ( Altalaya ( talk) 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)).
Not done: The editsemiprotected template is just a way for someone to help you insert your changes into a semiprotected article. You have to detail the exact change. For less specific suggestions like these, engaging an interested editor on the talk page is probably the way to go. Celestra ( talk) 13:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
On the Tiger page:
1. In the taxo-box on the right the "historical distribution" graphic needs to be redone to include the historic range of Panthera tigris virgata. This should include connectivity through the upper and lower margins of the Taklamakan desert as per the above referenced study.
2. Under the heading Characteristics - "(as well as the ground coloration of the fur; for instance, Siberian tigers are usually paler than other tiger subspecies)" This should be changed to eliminate the reference to "subspecies". Just leaving it at "tigers" should do.
3. Under the heading "Subspecies": The Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), also known as the Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean or North China tiger, is confined to the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far eastern Siberia, where it is now protected. Considered the largest subspecies, with a head and body length of 190–230 cm (the tail of a tiger is 60–110 cm long) and an average weight of around 227 kg (500 lb) for males,[19] the Amur tiger is also noted for its thick coat, distinguished by a paler golden hue and fewer stripes. The heaviest wild Siberian tiger on record weighed in at 384 kg,[27] but according to Mazak these giants are not confirmed via reliable references.[15] Even so, a six-month old Siberian tiger can be as big as a fully grown leopard. The last two censuses (1996 and 2005) found 450–500 Amur tigers within their single, and more or less continuous, range making it one of the largest undivided tiger populations in the world. Genetic research in 2009 demonstrated that the Siberian tiger, and the western "Caspian tiger" (once thought to have been a separate subspecies that became extinct in the wild in the late 1950s[28][29]) are actually the same subspecies, since the separation of the two populations may have occurred as recently as the past century due to human intervention.[30]
The Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata), the last remnants being known as the Siberian, Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean or North China tiger, is now confined to the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far eastern Siberia, where it is protected. Considered the largest subspecies, with a head and body length of 190–230 cm (the tail of a tiger is 60–110 cm long) and an average weight of around 227 kg (500 lb) for males,[19] the Amur tiger is also noted for its thick coat, distinguished by a paler golden hue and fewer stripes. The heaviest wild Siberian tiger on record weighed in at 384 kg,[27] but according to Mazak these giants are not confirmed via reliable references.[15] Even so, a six-month old Siberian tiger can be as big as a fully grown leopard. The last two censuses (1996 and 2005) found 450–500 Amur tigers within their single, and more or less continuous, range making it one of the largest undivided tiger populations in the world. Genetic research in 2009 demonstrated that the Siberian tiger is one of a number of local variants of the subspecies "Caspian tiger" (Panthera tigris virgata) which was once thought to have been a separate subspecies that became extinct in the wild in the late 1950s[28][29]). The Siberian is thought to have been separated from the greater Caspian population as recently as the past century due to human intervention.[30]
4. In the taxo-box on the right, to be fair to the various nationalities that might feel a partiality to one subspecies of another that may be more affiliated with their country than another, I would suggest a picture of the South China tiger as the premier "tiger photo", as it seems to be the oldest tiger subspecies and the one from which all other current subspecies have sprung.
On the Siberian tiger page:
1. The Siberian tiger page now starts: The Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), also known as the Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean, North China or, Ussuri tiger. Though it once ranged throughout whole eastern Russia it is now completely confined to the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far eastern Siberia, where it is now protected. It is considered to be the biggest of the nine recent tiger subspecies and the largest living felid. Genetic research in 2009 revealed that the current Siberian tiger population is almost identical to the Caspian tiger, a now extinct western population once thought to have been a distinct subspecies.[2]
The Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), a synonym of the Caspian tiger subspecies (Panthera tigris virgata) also known as the Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean, North China or, Ussuri tiger. Though it once ranged throughout the whole of eastern Russia it is now completely confined to the Amur-Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far south eastern Russia, where it is protected. Genetic research in 2009 revealed that the current Siberian tiger population is almost identical to the now extinct western population of the Caspian tiger. The Siberian once thought to have been a distinct subspecies is now understood to be the last surviving remnant of the once wide ranging Caspian tiger. It is the biggest of the recent tiger subspecies and the largest living feline.
2. The taxo-box on the right contains an erroneous scientific classification - the Siberian tiger is not a subspecies. The subspecies category should be "P. tigris virgata."
3. The taxo-box on the right gives the name Panthera tigris altaica as a trinomal name (in animals there is only one rank below species, and that is subspecies - all others are local variations or morphs); stating that varietal name is a trinomal name is absolutely incorrect, as it now known that there never was a subspecies "altaica", with Temmnick in 1884 naming a local variant as a subspecies (an honest mistake without the aid of DNA analyzation).
4. The taxo-box on the right, second graphic down is now in error; it should probably be a combination of both of the current graphics with the caption describing the original range of the entire subspecies - Panthera tigris virgata.
5. The taxo-box on the right synonym list is also certainly incorrect; it lists P. t. virgata as a synonym of the siberian tiger. That has to be corrected before one more school kid sees that. How did any Wiki editor ever read any source material and come up with that??? I have now read more than one article referencing this same study and they are all in agreement in their comments. The ICZN is very specific, Panthera tigris virgata was described first (1812) and is thus the official trinomal name of the subspecies - until we hear futher. Siberian in reference to tigers is now merely a synonym.
6. The rest of the article has components that were probably hijacked from what looks like a depleted Caspian tiger page, and there are incorrect references here and there throughout the lower body that seem to incorrectly indicate an unfounded preference for the name Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) as a true subspecies, when in fact published and accepted scientific analysis demonstrates that it is not a subspecies, only a local variant - a cornered remnant of the once wide ranging Caspian Tiger.
On the Caspian tiger page:
1. The Caspian tiger page now starts: The Caspian tiger (formerly Panthera Tigris Virgata), also known as the Persian tiger or Turanian tiger was the westernmost population of Siberian tiger, found in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Caucasus, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan until it apparently became extinct in the late 1950s, though there have been several alleged sightings of the tiger.[1] Though originally thought to have been a distinct subspecies, genetic research in 2009 proved that the animal was largely identical to the Siberian tiger.[2]
The Caspian tiger (Panthera Tigris Virgata), also known as the Persian tiger or Turanian tiger was the most wide ranging of extant tiger subspecies, found in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Caucasus, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, northern China, and eastern Russia. It was apparently hunted and pressured into near extinction throughout most of it's ranges in the late 1950s. The Siberian, Amur, Manchurian, Altaic, Korean, North China or, Ussuri tiger, was originally thought to have been a distinct subspecies though genetic research in 2009 proved that the animal was largely identical to the Caspian tiger, thus the Caspian once thought to have been hunted into extinction lives on in this remnant.
2. There needs to be a taxo-box on the right, the same as found on the Siberian tiger and Tiger pages; it should include the proper scientific classification - with the subspecies category being "P. tigris virgata."
3. The taxo-box should include the requisite composite map that depicts the combined ranges of the P. t. virgata and P. t. altaica, and a map that depicts the current range of P. t. altaica labeled "Distribution of Siberian Tiger."
4. The taxo-box should include a list of synonyms - including the Siberian tiger, and it's previously attributed list of synonyms.
5. The rest of the article needs to be completely rewritten and reassembled to reflect the reality that P. t. virgata and P. t. altaica are one and the same, that the subspecies was first classified by Illiger in 1815 as P. t. virgata, was commonly known as the Caspian tiger, and that the last known population of this subspecies is known to exist in far southeastern Russia - the local synonym for the last tigers of this subspeices in their far eastern range is the Siberian tiger.
Thanks ( Altalaya ( talk) 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)).
I tried to google the subject but I couldn't find much useful info... Can it support an adult human's weight?
98.238.188.211 ( talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)uih8iuhbuihuyghyg
Written by Ajit Kumar. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.247.134.10 (
talk)
13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't: A tiger can ofcourse support the weight of a human being, but for the love of all that is rational don't try to ride one. It is liable to protest violently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.226.83 ( talk) 00:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Add Frosty the tiger!!!! Timothy the cat ( talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The Bengal tiger's scientific name is Panthera tigris tigris. The Bengal tiger is the species type, but it has been suggested that the tiger should be classified into just three subspecies. 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You are missing a subspecies. The Siberian (Amur) tiger is more closely related to the Bengal than it is, or was, to the Caspian. The Caspian tiger was Panthera tigris virgata. It has been suggested that the tiger should be reclassified into just three subspecies: The mainland Asian (Panthera tigris tigris), the Sunda Island tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae), and the West Asian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata). pg. 44 The Way Of The Tiger by K. Ullas Karanth 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 17:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing about this here: http:/www.savethetigerfund.org/Content/NavigationMenu2/Community/Tigersubspecies/CaspianTiger/default.htm Thank you for the reply. As far as I can determine the Caspian is still a recognized subspecies. 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please Remove them small article of HOw to remove the tiger skin as it cause a bad image to wike itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarsh.korath ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)