Talk:Tiger/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

¿The Tiger is the largest cat?

Wall of text that's going nowhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"An average adult male tiger from Northern India or Siberia outweighs an average adult male lion by around 45.5 kg (100 lb". "Males tigers vary in total length from 250 to 390 cm (98 to 154 in)".https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lDXGoxgs7vEContribuidor del Conocimiento (talk) 09:36 pm, 16 February 2016 (UTC) References No, a liger (lion-tiger hybrid) can outweigh a tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Contradicting or confusing information On one hand, studies show that, on average, Bengal tigers are heavier than Southern African lions and Siberian tigers. On the other hand, the above sentence "An average adult male tiger from Northern India or Siberia outweighs an average adult male lion by around 45.5 kg (100 lb)" gives the impression that northern Bengal and Siberian tigers are about the same, on average. Leo1pard (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Done. Leo1pard (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) According to scientists and biologist lion and tiger are similar in size and in weight The tiger was considered as the largest because the current record weight in the wild was 389 Kg for a Bengal tiger shot in 1967, actually this record haven't been accepted by the biologists and scientists of U.S MUSEUM of NATURAL History, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Indeed, The GUINNESS BOOK OF ANIMAL FACTS AND FEATS, mention about this record weight that: This enormous poundage was late confirmed by Doctor Henry W. Setzer. Curator of Mammals at U.S Museum (NH) who told the compiler that the animal had been weighted on scale at a a sugar plantation, this avoir avoirdupois however, is somewhat deceptive inasmuch the tiger had killed a buffalo the previous evening and had probably eaten heavily. George B. Schaeller (1967) says the amount of food ingested by a tiger at one sitting can total as much as 20 per cent of its body weight, which means a very hungry 700 Ib 317 kg tiger could in theory dispose of 63 kg 140 Ib of meat. On the other hand, it also proves that Hasinger's monstrous beast would have scale at least 324 kg 715 Ib, even with an empty stomach. https://imgur.com/NZsxrX5 https://s1136.photobucket.com/user/ashtonowns/media/P%20Tigris/recordtigeryv2.jpg.html. So, according Schaller the biggest tiger in the wild had a record weight of 324 kg https://imgur.com/NZsxrX5 https://s1136.photobucket.com/user/ashtonowns/media/P%20Tigris/recordtigeryv2.jpg.html which is similar to the record of the lion in wild (313 kg https://s277.photobucket.com/user/brentlion_2008/media/brentonlion/250kglion2yv7-2.jpg.html). The weight record of 388 kg was accepted by the Guinness Book of Records but rejected by biologists and scientists of the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION because this Bengal was fed with 64 kg of buffalo meat the day before his death. That is not what the book cited says. It says the animal had killed a buffalo and "probably eaten heavily". It then goes on to say a hungry tiger can eat up to 20% of its body weight, which would be 64kg if the tiger had eaten 20% of its body weight. However, they have no information on how much the tiger had actually eaten. It certainly doesn't claim scientists at the Smithsonian rejected the claim. The scientist mentioned by name confirms the weight is valid, but adds the proviso that it could be a temporary weight due to the large meal. Jts1882 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) But the problem is that there are many authors on the tigers and contributors in Wikipedia who continue to take this false record weight of 388 kg which is rejected by scientists to prove and justify that the tiger is an animal larger than the lion; and taking this weight record of 388 kg to prove and justify that the tiger that the tiger is an animal larger than the lion. And taking the weight record of 388 kg to prove that the tiger is larger than the lion is a lack of honesty towards the general public who read wikipedia on the tiger; and on the other hand, it is to show partiality towards the tiger. I would like to remind Wikipedia contributors that we only take the weight records validated and accepted by scientists and biologists, because they're the only ones able to know better these animals that are tigers and lions. So, if a lion and tiger weight is accepted by book authors such as the Guinness Book of Record and rejected by scientists and biologists this record weight can not be valid simple fact. Since the 22/06/2010 in the BBC show according the scientist Mark Evans and comparative anatomist DR Joy Reidenberg who have dissected a lion and a tiger, according to them lion and tiger are similar in size and weight http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/09/06/ing-lions-and-tigers/ . Since the 17/07/2010 in a blocked video in Youtube ""Lion & Tiger Compared 2"" in this video in Youtube some scientists said that the biggest lions and the biggest tigers are the same size, they're virtually the same animals adapted for different habitats https://i.yting.com/tWXqPO0jAwE/hdefault.pg, https://wwww.youtube.com/watch?v=Y36xXuPsvZY&t=14s They're similar because some lions are bigger than some tigers vice versa. It's a nonsense to compare lion and tiger because they're cousin from different habitat; in this video in Youtube you can watch a big lion who outweigh a siberian tiger with 50 kg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHZjBCk9Xh4&t=31s&index=27&list=LLeELVC5ixXn-FKnRMeN6rVQ; even in captive life the biggest lions can rivals the biggest tigers and reach the weight of 900-1000 Ib like Sultan owned by Swede Johnson https://www.quora.com/what-scientific-claim-can-you-prove-wrong-with-tangible-proof/answer/Sudip-Mitra-8?srid=ukZgd. -bagheerax-Bagheerax (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC) When you guys are quite finished up there, I invite you to ponder the wisdom of equating a reliable source published in print (like, what's currently used as sourcing in the article) to Youtube videos of TV shows; comparisons of individuals to comparisons of population-level ranges; and captive to wild animals.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Yes, I join Elmidae's invitation. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC) As my comment above says, scientists haven't rejected the claim. One scientist confirmed the weight, but added the caveat that the tiger had probably had a large recent meal. However, this is all rather irrelevant as the largest single individual lion or tiger is not the issue. The article states that the Siberian tiger is largest on average and gives a source for this. The claim is not based on one big animal, making the size of this tiger and its last supper rather moot. Jts1882 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "This poundage was only "confirmed" (before the body of that tiger was autopsied) by Dr Henry W. Setzer a curator of Mammals at the U.S Museum who told the compiler that the animal had been weighted on scale at a sugar plantation, this avoirdupois, however, somewhat deceptive inasmuch as the tiger had killed a buffalo the previous evening and had probably eaten heavily. So, this record or this weight of 388 kg have been rejected by George B. Schaller because he mentioned in this book that: George B.Schaller (1967) says the amount of food ingested by a tiger at one sitting can total as much as 20 percent of its body-weight, which means a very hungry 317 kg 700 Ib tiger could in theory dispose of 63 kg 140 Ibn of meat. This record of 388 kg was rejected because it's mentioned in this book that "ON THE OTHER HAND, IT ALSO PROVES THAT "HASINGER'S MONSTROUS WOULD HAVE SCALED AT LEAST 324 KG 715 IB", EVEN WITH AN EMPTY STOMACH https://imgur.com/NZsxrX5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not going to happen without reliably sourced evidence that does better than extrapolating from a poorly documented individual case. There are also bonobos that are heavier than small humans, and you still won't see us stating that this invalidates the statement that bonobos are the smallest apes. Is that clear enough for you? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC) The document in question comes from the GUINESS BOOK OF ANIMAL FACTS AND FEATS, the source in which you took the false record of 388 kg, and being a fan of the tiger that's why you did not put the sentence where it's mentioned that ON THE OTHER HAND, IT ALSO PROVES THAT "HASINGER'S MONSTROUS WOULD HAVE SCALED AT LEAST 324 kg 715 IB, EVEN WITH EMPTY STOMACH !!!!! it's not honest (to put a false record 388 kg and) to LEAVE OUT this sentence !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interesting. In that case, I would write down that the heaviest wild Bengal tiger weighed 388.7 kg (857 lb), including the contents in the stomach, 324 kg (714 lb) without the contents, what do you say? Leo1pard (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC) It depends on which lions and tigers you are talking about. From what I see, the biggest tigers were the Bengal, Caspian and Siberian tigers (or, if you consider the latter 2 to be the same subspecies, then Bengal and Siberian tigers), and the biggest wild lions were not necessarily Barbary lions but Southern African lions, though in captivity, we have claims of huge "Barbary lions", like one that weighed about 900 lb (410 kg). The smallest tigers were the Sunda group (Balinese, Javan and Sumatran tigers), Malayan tigers and South Chinese tigers. In the middle, we have Indochinese tigers and Asiatic lions, and Senegal lions in Western and Central Africa appear to be similar in size to their Asiatic cousins. Leo1pard (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Excuse me if i took a long time to answer you, you ask me the question if you must put this sentence:" I would write down that the heaviest wild Bengal tiger weighed 388,7 kg including the contents in the stomach, 324 kg without the contents??? my answer is yes you must write this sentence, because it will finally be a proof of honesty on your part . My request is that you write and that you insist on the similarity of sizes that exists between lion and tiger because this wikipedia on the tiger is still tendencious toward the tiger because you didn't leave out your fanatisme toward the tiger... it's a false info to say "that tiger is the largest cat species" or "that the Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger subspecies are the tallest living felids at the shoulder, and thus considered the largest living felids with extinct Caspian tiger among the biggest that ever existed" because if tiger were the largest, they would have to be the tallest too, and tigers were never as tall as lions. Lion can have as much as 1 to even two feet of height over the average tiger and wikipedia on the big cats confirm that "lion is the tallest living species in the cat family, which includes the genus panthera"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_cat !!!!!!!!! According to many scientists the lion is higher at the shoulder but shorter than the tiger https://books.google.com/books?id=ZP7fAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA199&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=OCCwQ6AEwBGoVChMIvZ28jMSOxglVSouSCh3Qywan≠v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&b=false,the lion stand higher than tiger https://books.google.fr/books?id=c7gRAQAAMAAJ&q=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22stands+higher%22&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22stands+higher%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBQQGAEwAGoVChMI3KjGrsu0xg.IVAX6SCh1-QQDw lion is the tallest at shoulder of all living cats http://www.lszooduluth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Lions.pdf, lion is taller than the tiger http://Koreananimals.org/LELA/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Reading-Comprehension-Lions.pdf averaging 14 cm taller than tiger http://www.answers.com/Q/How_big_are_lions, the lion typically reach 4 feet (120 cm) http://www.ultimatefieldguide.com/large_animals.htm http://www.thecoli.com/threads/barbary-lion-vs-siberian-tiger.419272 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) http://www.arkive.org/lion/panthera-leo/ http://www.oaklandzoo.org/Lion.php http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/lion http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_lion.html http://ndunahuntingsafaris.co.za/hunting-packages/big-five-hunting/ http://www.thesportsmanchannel.com/2015/04/10-deadly-apex-predators-earth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC) http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/lion http://www.ofcats.com/2008/05/african-lion.html http://www.defenders.org/lion/basic-facts http://www.britannica.com/animal/lion http://www.liveanimalslist.com/mammals/average-size-of-a-lion.php Large lions males often reach the size of 1,23m at the shoulder which is similar or slightly taller than the 1,22m in size at shoulder of the Siberian tiger http://khayelitsha.info/en/south-african-animals/mammals/carnivora/lion http://www.safarihuntingafrica.com/project/lion/ http://deadliestbeasts.wikia.com/wiki/African_Lion http://www.vulkaner.no/n/africa/lion-e.html http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheets/african_lion/lion.htm http://pariahpack2.webs.com/lions.htm http://www.botjes.nl/game_trophies_lion.html http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/762_Panthera_leo.pdf http://kruger-national-park-guide.com/kruger-lion.html http://www.movingplanets.com/world/animals/lion http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/762_Panthera_leo.pdf Some large male lion can reach the size of 1,25m http://www.researchgate.net/publication/316154304_Focus_on_the_Lion_Panthera_leo https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A12921428 http://www.bornfree.org.uk/wild-crew/animal-facts/lion/ A large male lion from the Okavango delta was measured at 1,31,5m at the shoulder http://www.wildfact.com/forum/topic-lion-directory?page=6 Once again, it's a false info to say that the Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger, subspecies are the tallest livings felids at the shoulder, and thus considered the largest living felids with extinct Caspian tiger, because it is to the lion that it has been given the title of King of the Jungle for a reason. It is the tallest of all felines and has muscular legs http://books.google.fr/books?id=2GZm2R9CxocC&pg=PA67&dq=lion+is+the+%22tallest+%22+shoulder&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lion%20the%20%22tallest%22%20shoulder&f=false, and according to a french book that the title is Guide des animaux des parcs animaliers ISBN 978-2-410-0092-4 written by Gérard Guillot (a french naturalist), Dominique Martiré (a french author), Frank Merlier (a french author) published by éditions BELIN / Humensis 2017, it's mentioned that a lion male can reach a height of 4 feet 92 inches(1,50 m) at the shoulder . In the prezi.com it's mentioned that The white lion male can grow to 5 feet (1,52 m) at the shoulder mostly found in zoo's https://prezi.com/ib03rqqf9yhs/endarn. The smallest of lion subspecies has an average shoulder size similar http://www.animalspot.net/asiatic-lion.html to that of the largest tiger sub-species http://www.reference.com/pets-animals/average-size-tiger-abb68fd32a0518c4 but has a record size at shoulder of 4 feet 6 inches (1,37 m) which is higher than the largest tiger http://books.google.com/books?id=DOQ4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA526&dq=lion+tiger+four+feet+shoulder&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vxR6Ur7KOOfJigKK04CgCw&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAjgU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ~~leoleo7475~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC) The second is the tiger rather longer than the lion but not so tall https://books.google.com/books?id=NyoqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBjgoahUKEwi2r6WBx47GAhWFOpIKHbK5AJk#v+onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC) The lion stand higher at the shoulder than the tiger http://books.google.fr/books?id=c7gRAQAAMAAJ&q=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22stands+higher%22&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22stands+higher%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAGoVChMI3KjGrsu0xg.IVAX6SCh1-QQDw. The tiger is not bigger than lion his body is longer and more slender than that of the lion and his legs shorter http://books.google.com/books?id=8BJFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA50&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBDgoahUKEwi2r6WBx47GAhWFOPIKHbK5AJk#v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false. His legs resemble to those of lion only the legs are much shorter in proportion to the size of the animal (the tiger)https://books.google.com/books?id=HKYuxHhPh3oC&pg=PA130&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCWoVChMIvZ28jMSOxgIVSouSCh3QywAn#v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false The legs are rather shorter, ad the animal bends them more and has more of the snake like flexure of the spine when he walks https://books.google.com/books?id=CLgTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA728&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAzgUahUKEwj4tMG3xY7GAhUGB5IKHTO7APU#v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false Than even the lion himself; it's much slenderer in proportion also to its size; its legs shorter, and its neck and body longer https://books.google.com/books?id=kogMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423&dq=%22lion%22+%22tiger%22+%22shorter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBjgUahUKEwj4tMG3xY7GAhUGB5IKHTO7APU#v=onepage&q=%22lion%22%20%22tiger%22%20%22shorter%22&f=false. Siberian tiger can exceptionally reach the size of four feet at the shoulder (1,22 m)http://finaquant.com/tigers/tigers-physical-traits this is an exception not the rule. Height of 3,5 feet (1,07 m) is more usual for the tiger or the Siberian tiger which is in general the tallest sub-species of the tiger at the shoulder https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/tall-tigers-bbc20f0b9912ec51. the Siberian tiger doesn't stand as tall as lion the average height of the Siberian tiger is slightly under 4 feet at the shoulder, the Siberian tiger stand roughly 3,5 feet tall at the shoulder http://animals.mom.me/big-can-siberian-tiger-get-11060.html http://www.animalspot.net/siberian-.html.tiger http://www.reference.com/pets-animals/tall-tigers-bbc20f0b9912ec51 http://www.oocities.org/mrshmelman/SiberianTigerFacts.html http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/siberian/info.html http://www.big-cats.org/bigcatfacts/en/Tiger http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/amur4.html http://www.defenders.org/tiger/threats http://www.insyncexotics.org/tiger/ Bengal tigers is smaller than the Siberian tigers . A male stand between 2 and 3 feet (91 cm) http://www.shambala.org/adopt_tiger.htm. http://www.redorbit.com/reference/bengal_tiger http://www.oocities.org/mrshmelman/TigerFacts.html http://www.humanima.com/decouverte/en/article/bengal-tiger http://www.ejyoti.com/tiger/409-about-bengal-tigers.htm http://www.iloveindia.com/wildlife/indian-wild-animals/bengal-tiger/index.html http://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/b/bengal-tiger/ Only large male can rival the height at the shoulder of the average Siberian tiger http://pictures-of-cats.org/how-big-is-the-bengal-tiger.html Careful, a number of these links contradict each other, such as on the weights of Bengal tigers. One suggests that it weighs up to less than 600 lb (270 kilograms), but another link talks about it exceeding 600 lb (270 kilograms). Like I said below, going by average and maximum recorded weights in the wilderness (using reliable sources), it appears to be the Bengal tiger that is the biggest tiger, not the Siberian tiger. It is in captivity, or specified measurements on their bodies, such as their lengths, that the Siberian tiger is the biggest of its species, from what I see, and measuring captive animals is easier than trying to measure wild animals. Leo1pard (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC) I'm super late commenting in this section but straight to the point. I've worked with both big cats. It depends on the subspecies but when looking at the largest of both species the Siberian tiger is the largest hands down. Those cats are pure muscle and very intelligent we even have special doors made for them because they can open a simple lever just like a house cat. That's just to clarify for those of you that have never seen either up close and personal.Mcelite (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC) More specifically, the Siberian tiger is the largest tiger in captivity, or going by specified measurements on the bodies of tigers, such as their lengths. In the wilderness, going by average and maximum recorded weights, it appears to be the Bengal tiger that is the biggest tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC) A similar issue appears to exist for African lions. In the wilderness, the heaviest lion which is mentioned in Wikipedia (I did see different stories elsewhere) was a Transvaal lion (also known as the Southeast African lion), but going by body-dimensions, I cannot say if it was bigger than the longest reported Katanga lion (also known as the Southwest African lion), and the reference that was used for the latter lion is the same reference that was used for the 388.7-kilogram Bengal tiger. As for the "different stories elsewhere," I did see information about African lions, apart from the mentioned Transvaal lion, weighing above 700 lb (320 kilograms). Leo1pard (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC) At first i would to tell you that these references are not contradictory because the purpose of these links above is not to show you the varieties of weight that the Bengal tiger can reach in the wild; the purpose of these links is to show that the Siberian tiger,Bengal tiger, and the Caspian tiger are the not the tallest at the shoulder like it is mentioned in this wikipedia on the tiger. In this wikipedia on the tiger, the tiger is presented as a super-cat that has all the superlatives: Siberian tiger, Bengal tiger, are the tallest livings felids at the shoulder, and thus considered the largest living felids with the extinct Caspian tiger. At first you can't say that because tiger don't possess all advantages physically; and the purpose of this debate is to say simply that the tiger is not some kind of undisputed superior-in-all-ways, deity like super-cat. Simply because there is another cat that is not only nearly identical in size, but for the most part quite similar in behavior as well...the African lion. Leoleo7495 (talk) (Newer comment) Regarding the change from 'lion' to 'African lion', I somewhat disagree. One reason is that a number of African lions inhabit open savannahs (especially the East African lion in the Serengeti), though some do inhabit forested places (like the West African lion in Pendjari National Park), whereas the Asiatic lion inhabits a forested region, that is Gir Forest National Park and surrounding areas in Kathiawar Peninsula, making it similar to the tiger. In addition, the Asiatic lion, like the tiger, and reportedly unlike its African relative (I am not saying that African lions are the same) has promiscuity: http://www.hindustantimes.com/dehradun/promiscuity-of-mother-lioness-saves-cubs-in-gir-study/story-hDsC9dQelQ750MXCvTohJN.html Leo1pard (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I see. As I mentioned elsewhere, apart from the issue of Lion versus tiger, we do have at least one hybrid cat that rivals the tiger in size, that is the liger. However, to change that bit about heights at the shoulder, we need at least one reliable reference, in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia, so let me look at the references, and see what I can do. Like I hinted elsewhere, the African lion, never mind the lion in general, is more complicated than people might think, especially with what I just mentioned about the Egyptian lion over there. I read something about the Barbary lion also being called the "Egyptian lion," and weighing up to 400 kg (880 pounds). And that is not all to the complicated nature of the African lion, though I hope that the following sentence would conclude what I read about it (and I did read a lot), barring a large topic. Heptner and Sludskii (1972) mentioned P. l. hollisteri as being from the northern bank of Lake Victoria, where Uganda is roughly located, but according to Joel Asaph Allen (1924), Hollister's specimen was from Lime Springs, Sotik, in what is now Kenya. Leo1pard (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Scientist in Russia report that no tigers immobilized by the Russian team have weighed as much bas those in Chitwan. It probably is a function of habitat quality. Siberian tigers have the potential for being the largest, and captives Siberian tiger are larger than captive Bengal tiger. But in the wild the prey in Russia is not abundant to realize their full potential physically https://bigcatrescue.org/tiger-facts. ( I didn't finish i will continue later) I get the idea, you are referring to this "Body size of the tiger varies with latitude, the smallest occurring at low latitudes in Indonesia and the largest at high altitudes in Manchuria and Siberia. The largest, the Siberian tiger can reach weights exceeding 700 lb (320 kilograms) and reach lengths of 10 ft (3.0 metres)+, and the smallest, the Indonesian or Bali tiger weighing a mere 200 lb (91 kilograms) with a total length of 7 ft (2.1 metres). While Amur Tigers are usually the largest tigers in captivity the Indian tigers in the wild have proven to be larger than any recorded Siberian cats. Female Bengal tigers (panthera tigris tigris) will average 300 lb (140 kilograms) and males 450 lb (200 kilograms). Several in Nepal have been recorded between 550 and 700 lb (250 and 320 kilograms). The largest Siberian on record is 845 lb (383 kilograms). The Guiness Book of Records has one tiger in India at 857 lb (389 kilograms), shot by a hunter from Philadelphia in 1967, near what is now Corbett Tiger Reserve. Scientists in Russia report that no tigers immobilized by the Russian team have weighed as much as those in Chitwan. It probably is a function of habitat quality. Siberian tigers have the potential for being the largest, and captive ones are larger than captive Bengals. But in the wild the prey base in Russia is not abundant enough for those tigers to realize their full potential. Prey is more scattered and the Russian tigers need huge territories to capture sufficient food, so much more energy is expended in the food quest." Leo1pard (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC) And if the abundance of prey is a factor for the sizes of the wild cats, then what must be the case for an African lion in an open savannah? Not only would the African lion have a lot of prey, its list of prey includes the biggest terrestrial animal in the World, that is the African bush elephant (I know that it is said that lions would feed on juvenile elephants, but that does not mean that they cannot take down adults: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ZW0EvMzSM), which is much bigger than the tiger's biggest prey, that is the Asian elephant, but one must also consider the fact that lions tend to be social, and tigers tend to be solitary. Leo1pard (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC) According to Russian scientists if you look at why Bengal tiger can get heavier than Siberian tigers or African lions (only in the wild) is food consumption. being most scientist and zoologist have stated that lions and tigers are almost anatomically the same cat, when they do autopsy's and strip the flesh from lions and tigers, by simple glance most of top experts can't tell a lion from tiger http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/09/06/ing-lions-and-tigers http://windfallfilms.com/show/1694/episode-3-big-cats.aspx , http://www.thirteen.org/programs/inside-natures-giants/pbs-presents-inside-natures-giants-big-cats-preview/... but as for food consumption the lion consumes less because he's the only cat in the wild period. So the food consumption is the barrier which separates the tigers and the lions in the wild period. Its simple math really if a tiger kills a 1000 pound buffalo, he will then be able to consume more of that buffalo than a lion killing a 1000 pound buffalo, because the tiger is solitary, so he will digest atleast 80% 8/10 ths if he pro-longs the buffalo for a week or longer, while a lion being in the pride, will have to share the buffalo on average of 10-20 other lions, so he will only digest 2/10 ths of the buffalo on average before the whole pride consumes it in less than a day or two. Less consumption would mean less weight among occasion's, that why lion weights are among the most randomest scales to calculate or determine. While that pattern can actually be broken... via captive lions. Indeed, in captivity zoo's, circuses and sanctuary feed lions a meal of a solitary animal (like the tigers), being... having a consistant diet, which shows that lions can actually reach what ever weights the Siberian tiger (which is the biggest of the sub-species of the tigers) can...both can reach 500-1000 pound in captive live. Most of these lions up to 454 kg are animals that have been fed in order to reach the maximum of their physical potential; i mean some of these call obese lions, still do feats that doesn't define fat and sloppy and defies obesity, like this 1000 pound monster named Sultan tight steel wire. http://famousclowns.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/animal-traier-swede-johnson-lion-high-wire.jpg, here is the weight of Sultan (Wild Animal Trainer In Circus Hall Of Fame) http://www.thecoli.com/threads/kodiak-bear-vs-african-lion.433196/page-6 https://postimg.org/image/7eIs4dai1/ which Sultan weight fluctuated from 900-1000 pound who know probably on a good stuff day of eating his fill of the usual 20% of there body weight, he could have beat Jaïpur the largest tiger Jaïpur weight fluctuated from 932 pounds http://imgur.com/jD50iLT.jpg - 1025 pound http://dinoanimals.com/animals/siberian-tiger-the-largest-tiger. At max he was 465 kg. Jaïpur was only 0,25% heavier than Sultan. Certainly Sultan would made Jaïpur small anyway, since Sultan had enormous mane as well, which increased his mass any at least 50% of 1000 pound is 500 pound, Sultan would visually look 500 pound heavier than Jaïpur and stand taller as well. Sultan Was stated by numerous sources to have been one of the largest lion in the U.S.A. 1000 pound lion named Simba http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Illinois_2004%20February%2014.pdf, http://semissourian.com/story/131162.html, http://thesouthern.com/news/lion-attacks-kills-hardin-county-man/article_17ccce1c-8e09-5f74-8b5e-d20972aac06b.html ( this big lion has been killed in 2004 his weight was confirmed by Hardin County Coroner Roger Little following an autopsy) 1000 pound lion Ethiopian courts housed http://biggame.iza-yoi.net/bigcat/lion.html 900 pound lion named Lord Ivory in the Jungle Island http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JungleIsland-Lion.JPG, http://s2.postimg.org/hmd2j10u1/Screenshot_67.png, http://traveltips.usatoday.com/miami-attractions-children-25127.html CBS News investigative correspondent Armen Keteyan speaks about the debate and what it was like doing an interview within feet of a 900 pound lion http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x364597531/Morning-Jolt-Haunted-home-for-seniors 826 pound lion named Simba of Colchester zoo (Guinness record holder, the largest captive lions). Lion like Simba are being shown to be not uncommon as most would think, you can see above that there are many other lions rival and surpasses his height and weight, such as Sultan (1000 pound), Simba (1000 pound), African lion from ethiopia (1000 pound)... https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-freak-specimens?page=4 807 pound lion named Rutledge (last Guinness record holder, the largest captive lion) http://adambarefoot.deviantart.com/art/Rutledge-World-s-Largest-Lion-148826480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Or it is fair to say that the tiger is more variable in size than the lion. For instance, the Sumatran tiger (males: 100–140 kg (220–310 pounds), females: 75–110 kg (165–243 pounds)) is generally smaller than the Indian lion (males: 160–190 kg (350–420 pounds), females: 110–120 kg (240–260 pounds)), which is similar in weight to the Indochinese tiger (males: 150–195 kg (331–430 pounds), females: 100–130 kg (220–290 pounds)), and the Central African lion, according to Pocock (1939), but smaller than large African lions, which were generally rivaled by the three biggest populations, if not subspecies, of modern tigers. Leo1pard (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC) The question that people can ask is why weights of lions weighing 1000 pound are not mentioned in the GUINNESS BOOK WORLD RECORDS LIMITED? what people don't know is that the GUINESS BOOK WORLD RECORDS LIMITED doesn't accept all records but chooses its owns records; its choices are subjective, which means that among the many record weights of lions living in captivity is that of Simba of the Colchester Zoo and its 375 kg which was chosen by the GUINNESS WORLD RECORD BOOK LIMITED and yet there were lions living in captivity that surpassed in size and weight Simba of the Colchester zoo and its 375 kg, as for example Sultan and its 454 kg belonging to the tamer Fritz "Swede" Johnson as well as other lions that weighed than Simba of the Colchester Zoo ( actually we can see a 900 pound http://s2.postimg.org/hmd2j10u1/Screenshot_67.png white lion named Lord Ivory http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JungleIsland-Lion.JPG of the Jungle Island zoo in Miami and two 900 pound lions in YOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmUtjFBx6eM) the the weight of those lions that weighed heavier than Simba of Colchester zoo was never mentioned in the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOK LIMITED because it's mentioned in the Page 260 in the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOK that: GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOK LIMITED retains full freedom include or not records in his book. Be holder of record doesn't guarantee its inclusion in a publication of GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOK LIMITED...!!! Its record setting is subjective and not objective that why GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOKS LIMITED is aware that its lack of objectivity in its record-taking generate subsequent errors that why it is mentioned in the page 260 in the GUINNESS BOOK WORLD RECORDS LIMITED that: GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS BOOK LIMITED uses precise methods of verification to certify records. Despite his efforts error may exist In another sentence it is mentioned in the GUINNESS BOOK RECORDS LIMITED that: ...GUINNESS BOOK WORLD RECORDS LIMITED can't be held responsible for errors or omissions that would involve his book. Any correction or accuracy of the readers is welcome... Of course, I am not saying that Guinness' book is perfect. That bit "large African lions ... Siberian tiger: maximum reported weight in the wilderness is not specified here, but in captivity: 465 kg (1,025 lb)," is just an idea. But anyways, I hope that what I said above gives people an idea of how complicated the matter of the biggest lions versus the biggest tigers is, and that is why this section on their physical comparison is as complicated as it is. A number of people say different things about them. For example, some people might have believed that the Barbary lion was the biggest lion, and that the Siberian tiger is the biggest cat in the wilderness, but based on other sources, I am compelled to question these claims. According to me the GUINNESS BOOK RECORDS LIMITED made a mistake by taking the weight record of Simba of the Colchester ZOO its 375 kg confirms the false thesis that make the lion a small animal in size and weight compared to the Siberian tiger named Jaïpur whose height is 465 kg. THE GUINNESS BOOK RECORDS LIMITED should not have neglected the weight of the lion like Sultan and its 454 kg, because to take the weight of the lion like Sultan would have confirmed the new thesis of the scientist who say that there are lions and tigers of different shapes and sizes end that larger lions and tigers have similar, both are the biggest in different areas (lions are the tallest https://www.desertusa.com/animals/lion.html and tigers are the longest cat concerning the body), in the end it comes out similar when both comparing the largest lions and tigers. And when we compare the weights of Sultan and 454 kg and Jaïpur and its 465 kg we note that they have similar weights...Jaïpur is slightly heavier because the Siberian tiger stocks on average 5 cm of fat in his belly to support Siberian cold. (don't give an answer i didn't finish) And to make things more complicated, though Eurasian lions, which used to range all the way from India to Greece, but now live in a rather small pocket of their former Indian territory, are currently smaller than huge African lions, that does not mean that the former lions have always been that way. For instance, the Siberian tiger was believed to have been bigger in the past, and Norman Boyd Kinnear (1920) mentioned the account of Austen Henry Layard, who spoke of an "unusually large" Persian lion that was killed in Khuzestan, in the year 1841. Notes References Leo1pard (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC) It was proved by Scientist of SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE that the weight record of 388 kg of the tiger was a false record because this tiger had gorged 67 kg of meat during one night and it was that by Scientist of SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE that it weighed the weight of 324 kg with an empty belly https://imgur.com/NZsxrX5. And once again, actually you can't say that the tiger is largest of all cats...or Siberian tiger,Bengal tiger, are the tallest livings felids at the shoulder, and thus considered the largest living felids with extinct Caspian tiger because actually there are some researchers and top tigers experts like Ronald tilson http://www.tigers.ca/home/W2D7.html, https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/2013/11/24/tiger-expert-dr-ron-tilsons-leaves-great-legacy-but-great-cats-future-to-be-determined/ and Philip J. Nyhus http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/pjnyhus/ who are don't agree that the tigers is a bigger animal than the lions i know it very complicated to say which between the lions and tigers are the biggest cats these two experts on the tigers have mentioned this problem in the book Tiger of World, second edition: The science, politics and conservation of panthera tigris by Ronald Tilson (editor) and Philip J. Nyhus which is the best book of the last years on the tigers; In this book https://www.elsevier.com/books/tigers-of-the-world/tilson/978-0-8155-1570-8#description all record's since 1800's until around 2008 were revised.Past lions and tigers weights evaluations were over rated. All numbers had been revised. In the page 54 of this book know it is very complicated to say which between tigers and lions are the biggest according to them the resolulion of this discussion is difficult owing to a lack of reliable data, according to them big game hunters used to exaggerate the size of their lions and tigers, according to them the average wild male lion is slightly bigger than the average male tiger, and the average lionneses and tigresses have about the same weight. According to them the biggest lions and the biggest tigers are about the same size but they say also that if we use skull size as a surrogate of body size it has been suggested that the tiger may have a proportionally smaller head than the lion, so, it may bee safe to suggest that the lion can be said to be the biggest living cat...https://books.google.fr/books?id=XFIbjBEQoIMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=tigers+of+the+world+politics+conservation+of+panthera+tigris&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikoN6L3OPWAhUCvRoKHXRwAZAQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=tigers%20of%20the%20world%20politics%20conservation%20of%20panthera%20tigris&f=false

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309125526/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-152-01-0001.pdf to http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-152-01-0001.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nagonline.net/HUSBANDRY/Diets%20pdf/Zoo%20Guidelines%20for%20Keeping%20Large%20Felids%20in%20Captivity.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

¿The Tiger is the largest cat? - Part II, or Tiger versus lion

@Leoleo7495: My request to anyone who wants to discuss the issue of whether the tiger is bigger than the lion or vice-versa, or more specifically, which tigers are bigger than which lions or vice-versa, which is is related to the now-closed discussion above about whether or not the tiger is the largest member of the Cat Family, is that if you want to do so, then do not talk about it in the closed discussion above, or in this section, but in this talk-page, because that is what that article is partly about, but obviously, be careful in how you discuss it. It is a topic for which there is a lot of literature, including occasionally contradictory literature on different types of lions and tigers, such as the sizes and weights of Barbary lions and Siberian tigers, which were thought of as the largest of their respective species, but can be argued not to have been, at least in certain contexts. Leo1pard (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Trouble for the wild tiger

See here, besides the other link. Leo1pard (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Are Bengal and Siberian tigers the tallest felids at the shoulder?

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Revised taxonomy 2017

In that case, can we make articles for the Mainland Eurasian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) and Sunda tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica)? Leo1pard (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to refrain from creating new articles now, because a) the articles about the species and the formerly recognised subspecies are so long already so that b) duplicating all this info may not be reasonable, and c) the common names are not clear anyway. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The article currently says the IUCN CatSG proposed 2 subspecies in 2017 and this was "subsequently criticised by several geneticists" (in a 2015 article). Clearly they couldn't criticise the proposal two years before it was made. The main evidence for the two subspecies division comes from Wilting et al (2015), which I think is the paper criticised in the reference mentioned. There are several early papers proposing merger of some subspecies (e.g. Driscoll et al 2009, Luo et al 2010, Xie et al 2015) and even a proposal to divide the tiger into two species (Mazuk & Groves 2006). The CatSG report has a good summary of the proposals for merging and retaining various subspecies in their discussion on tiger taxonomy (p67), which could be used to expand (and correct) the proposed revision section. I'm going to read a few of these papers before making any changes.   Jts1882 | talk  08:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, Jts1882! Must have been hastily added without reading the rest. So checked refs and amended. Also agree to also ref the earlier publications like Mazak + Grooves 2006. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You had actually recognised and fixed the problem before I posted this comment. I had the article page from your previous edit open. Anyway, I've been looking at the appropriate timeline and will put this summary here for reference:

• Eight traditionally recognised subspecies (Mazak, 1981; Wozencraft, 2005)
• 2004: add Malaysian tiger based on molecular evidence (Luo et al, 2004)
• 2006: proposal for three species, continental, Sumatra, Java/Bali (Mazak & Groves, 2006)
• 2009: Caspian and Amur same subspecies (Driscoll et al 2009)
• 2010: phylogeny of six living subspecies + Caspian tiger (missing Bali and Java) (Luo et al 2010). Note the IUCN followed the nine subspecies division in 2011 (Chundawat et al, 2011) and 2015 (Goodrich et al, 2015).
• 2015: recent common ancestry three Sunda tiger subspecies; "molecular phylogenetic and phylogeographic analysis supports geographic subdivision within the Sunda tiger group" (Xie et al, 2015)
• 2015: Proposal for two subspecies (Wilting et al, 2015)
• 2015: objections in news article by Kai Kupferschmidt. Stephen O'Brien says collapsing Sunda subspecies may be reasonable, but sufficient differentiation for six continental subspecies. Shu-Jin Luo says nine subspecies can be distinguished genetically and that should be sufficient, even if not enough time for morphological differentiation of Sunda subspecies. But Urs Breitenmoser found the work convincing and in keeping with other findings in recent years (e.g. collapsing Caspian and Amur subspecies).
• 2017: CatSG comes down in favour of two subspecies.

An issue that is puzzling me is the basal position of the south China tiger in the phylogenies (Luo, Xie). With only two subspecies, the continental tiger is paraphyletic with respect to the Sunda tiger. A division, with at a minimum amoyensis as a third subspecies, or perhaps the Indian tiger as well, seems to makes more sense. Anyway it will be interesting to see if the CatSG recommendation gets wider acceptance.   Jts1882 | talk  14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The present revision may not be the final. I think it likely that genetic exchange between amoyensis and the other continental populations stopped later than between continental and Sunda populations. Sample size and timing of split is crucial. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Leo1pard (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The disparity between the IUCN and the American ITIS is probably only due to the ITIS being out of date. Please see below: ... Rewrite required.

Thanks,

Warrenfrank (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

IUCN vs ITIS on subspecies recategorization, a rewrite is (not yet) required

After attempting to figure out the exact relationship between the ITIS and the IUCN, it appears to me that the only reason the ITIS and affiliated groups may not have changed their subspecies listings is because the ITIS is merely out of date. Apparently the ITIS often cites the IUCN as its source material, but not vice-versa. Unless anyone else might be able to find any reasonable scholarly articles that might clearly show some other valid reason for the IUCN/ ITIS mismatch here, I will (or any other editor is certainly welcome to) try to return here around Sept. 1 to entirely rewrite the "Subspecies" section of this article to suitably reflect the new taxonomy.

Thanks, Warrenfrank (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC) (Notify users: @Jts1882:, and @BhagyaMani:, in case anyone else may have any more info on this.)

It is almost certainly the case that the ITIS and CoL follow the IUCN, but can only be an POV unless we can find statement that they use the IUCN definitions. I note that the IUCN redlist also hasn't updated their list yet (they have nine, with jacksoni). I would remove the final sentence about the ITIS and CoL as it is not helpful here. Their recognition of the eight tradition subspecies should included above the table with the Wozencraft reference. This section should end with the most up to date assessment.

Incidentally, I think a better subsection heading is "Reassessment of subspecies". Reclassification seems more final.   Jts1882 | talk  07:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that a 'rewrite' is required. Whether or not ITIS or CoL accepts the revision, does not have any influence on the revision itself. This last sentence does neither clarify nor contribute anything about the revision process. So yes, agree with Jts1882 : is superfluous. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both kindly for your thoughtful input here. I agree with you both. It would now seem to me, and I think you would probably agree, that Jts's suggestions are excellent, and that this section should probably at least await the IUCN's official update of their own list, before attempting to update our own list here. I will await any further comments or suggestions for a day or so, then, barring any further suggestions, will make the edits as proposed by Jts. Should either of you prefer to make those proposed edits yourself beforehand, please feel most welcome to do so yourself first.

Cheers,

Warrenfrank (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by .. 'the IUCN's official update of their own list' ... Please explain, which IUCN org you have in mind. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the list linked to by Jts above. This is all a lesson for myself in how taxonomic reclassification decisions are both made and agreed upon. Aparently not as easily as I had previously imagined. After briefly noting that the ITIS often cites the IUCN to support its taxonomy listings, and that the Catalog of Life is directly affiliated with the ITIS, I made the assumption (perhaps foolish) that a change in the IUCN Red List taxonomy "might" (not "would") signal enough agreement amongst taxonomists for WP to be able to properly reflect such a reclassification. Might you have any suggestion as to when and what the best indicater of sufficient change in opinions amongst taxonomists would be an acceptable signal as to when a rewrite of the categories in WP would be advisable?

I am neither a biologist, nor particularly a cat enthusiast, as some of you here quite obviously are. I'm merely someone who hopes to generally improve WP's articles on science, and who enjoys learning a few new things in the process. Please be patient with my beginner's blunderings here in the "WP cat department."

Thanks,

Warrenfrank (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC) (Notify user:@BhagyaMani:)

Thanks for your clarification! You may have noticed that IUCN Red Lists are not updated every year. And perhaps also that for most cat species, there was a round of updates in 2008, and the last was finalised in 2016. The taxonomic reference in the RLs form only a small part, a paragraph at most. But it is unlikely that the revised taxonomy would influence the threatened status of species, because the taxonomic (re)classification of a subspecies is not a criteria for the RL classification of a species. Note also that some authors of the revised felid taxonomy also co-authored some cat RLs. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Revised Tiger Taxonomy – Discussion in 2018

I wanted to point out something about the recent revision of tiger taxonomy by the International Union of Conservation (IUCN). IUCN has been previously criticized for not recognizing many valid species and subspecies. The failure of the IUCN to recognize two different species of African elephants is a notable example.[1] Recent genetic studies have shown that there are two species of African elephants, African bush elephants (Loxodonta africana) and African forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis).[2] The IUCN has refrained from recognizing two species because it fears that "premature allocation into more than one species may leave hybrids in an uncertain conservation status”.[3] Most scientists have discounted the  hybrid argument because there is little to no gene flow between the two species.[2][3] It is a similar case with giraffes.[4]

Coming back to the revision of tiger taxonomy, not everybody who conducted the study agrees with the results. At least two of the scientists want the continued recognition of six extant tiger subspecies.[5] The majority of the scientific community also does not agree with the revised tiger taxonomy.[6]

1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/jul/23/forest-elephants-evidence-science-species-ivory-crisis

2. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-african-elephants-two-species-new-science/

3. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/african-elephant-species/

4. https://www.nature.com/news/dna-reveals-that-giraffes-are-four-species-not-one-1.20567

5. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-tiger-subspecies-revised-2017/

6. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/controversial-study-claims-there-are-only-two-types-tiger

Achat1999 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Achat1999 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can say the majority of the scientific community don't agree with the revised tiger taxonomy. The article written in 2015 mentions some notable dissenters (O’Brien, Luo) but also supporters (Breitenmose) and neutrals (Homes). The IUCN taxonomic review was done subsequently and considered genetic, morphological and biogeographic information, not just the genetic differences advocated by O’Brien and Luo. The genetic split is very recent and genetic, morphological and biogeographic divisions don't match up (the Pampas cat has the same issue). Moreover, the report involved most of the major names in tiger classification. If two unnamed authors preferred to keep the traditional subspecies, they still signed up to the final report, which is what we have to go on. The animal described as an Amur tiger is now considered a regional variant of the continental subspecies rather than a subspecies in its own right, but is still a distinct animal (just not quite distinct enough for subspecies ... yet). It still gets separate treatment in this Wikipedia article and retains its own Wikipedia article (it would be a big mistake to merge the articles). Personally, I was hoping that the two way split would be used at the species level and the subspecies retained, but the most recent authoritative secondary source takes a different view.   Jts1882 | talk  09:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The authors in above list are not scientists, but journalists whose opinions about taxonomic status of species and subspecies are not relevant for such assessments. These are carried out on request of the Species Survival Commission by resp. Specialist Groups. BhagyaMani (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. For instance, both Stephen O'Brien and Shu-Jin Luo are respected geneticists. The said study was indeed carried out on request of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group. I agree with the decision not to merge the articles of the different tiger subspecies or populations though. They are much too big and detailed to be merged. I think a bit more information may be necessary to clarify the revision for novice readers. Like it would be good if the names of notable dissenters and supporters of the taxonomic revision are added to the relevant paragraphs. Achat1999 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The revision was carried out on request of the Species Survival Commission! All the authors of the revision are mentioned in the resp. reference. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with mentioning the opinion of dissenters is that we only have some quotes from 2015 when they were first asked about the proposal. We don't have their opinion on the CatSG review, of which Luo was an author. She might be one of the unnamed dissenting authors (which is unverifiable anyway), but she is an author of the revised taxonomy. We can hardly use an old quote to challenge a report written several years later after reviewing the complete literature.

It's worth noting that the author list on the revised taxonomy — Kitchener A. C., Breitenmoser-Würsten Ch., Eizirik E., Gentry A., Werdelin L., Wilting A., Yamaguchi N., Abramov A. V., Christiansen P., Driscoll C., Duckworth J. W., Johnson W., Luo S.-J., Meijaard E., O’Donoghue P., Sanderson J., Seymour K., Bruford M., Groves C., Hoffmann M., Nowell K., Timmons Z. & Tobe S. — is remarkably inclusive of the relevant experts. O'Brien is the only obvious missing name and we don't know his current opinion.   Jts1882 | talk  12:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The only reports in 2017 which I see as challenging the revised taxonomy for tigers into 2 subspecies by the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group in 2017, are the ITIS and Catalogue of Life, if that is supposed to be opposition. Leo1pard (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

ITIS follows MSW3 and I think CoL follows ITIS. The ASM database also follows the CatSG and as the ASM oversee MSW I think it likely MSW4 will follow suit.   Jts1882 | talk  13:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The listed sources do not challenge the revision, as they all predate it. See refs therein to MSW3 of 2005 and CoL v1.9 from 2016, resp. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

Sizes and numbers in the Subspecies section

I've spotted a contradiction in the table on subspecies:

Malayan tigers:

• Males [...] from 190–280 cm [...] 47.2 to 129.1 kg
• females [...] from 180–260 cm [...] 24 to 88 kg

Sumatran Tigers

• Males [...] from 220 to 255 cm[...] 100 to 140 kg
• females [...] from 215 to 230 cm [...] 75 to 110 kg

So, the numbers say that Malayan tigers are smaller than the Sumatran ones. However, the text on the Sumatran tiger also states: "It is the smallest of all living tigers"

=> This means either the sizes and weights in the tables are wrong or the statement about Sumatran tigers being the smallest is. (Or the statement might be about the average weight/size which is not provided in the table?). In either case, a correction to the table seems necessary.

There should also be a better way of formatting the table in general, where the systematic information (number of individuals, sizes and weights) have their own columns, to make comparisons easier and reduce the amount of repetitive text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.158.6 (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the explanation for this is that the Malaysian tiger has only relatively recently been recognised as a separate subspecies. The Sumatran tiger is the smallest of the traditional living subspecies, as indicated in the table in Mazak (1981, Ref 24). The size for the Malaysian tiger comes from a different source (which I can't access). I can't help notice that the weight ranges for the male and female Malaysian tigers are much wider than those of the other tigers, which suggests a different methodology. It is also dated before the Malaysian tiger was considered a separate subspecies. Jts1882 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've found a link to the Khan reference on the Malaysian tiger. The measurements are made on a few animals killed in the state of Terengganu. There are also numbers for a few females killed in the neighbouring state of Kelantan, which are considerably larger than both males and females in Teregganu and the female Sumatran tigers. There is no attempt to measure only adult animals and the sampling seems rather unsystematic, i.e using numbers as available rather the systematic comparison of Mazak (1981). I also note than Mazak (1981) makes a point of not including numbers from "shooting sport" souces. I don't think we can conclude the Malaysian tiger is the smallest. Jts1882 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Bergmann's rule for tigers

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that sometimes, people may try to claim here or there that the Amur tiger is the biggest tiger, using Bergmann's rule as a justification, but this appears to be true only in the case of captivity, not in the wilderness. Check the above link, besides links that have been posted there, for additional details. Leo1pard (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Caution

From time to time, I have had to correct details regarding the tiger versus the lion. It seems that as more research is done on this, more information which had previously been taken as fact, such as "The Bengal and Siberian subspecies are the tallest at the shoulder and thus considered the largest living felids," would have to be corrected. Leo1pard (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

what about the prehistoric subspecies

If IUCN Cat specialist group only classifies P. tigris as 2 subspecies, what about the fossil subspecies' validity? (P. tigris (acutidens, soloensis, trinilensis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.102.167 (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The IUCN only deals with extant species and subspecies so nothing changes. If anything the ruling strengthens the argument for those fossil tigers being subspecies. All modern tigers are closely related (from a 70 kya expansion), so if there are 9 modern subspecies there would be a case for considering these fossil tigers as seperate species. Now we can just consider five subspecies. A similar argument applies to the fossil jaguars.   Jts1882 | talk  07:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)