Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tiger/archive3

Tiger

Nominator(s): LittleJerry and BhagyaMani

I've avoided doing this article for years since there are already felid FAs including lion and jaguar, but the tiger is in a category of its own. Its the most iconic animal of Asia and one which many would consider their favorite animal. Its absence from mammal FAs has left a gaping hole. We've worked on this article for months, preening through each line and cite and rewriting along the way when needed. It has had a peer review. Special thanks to Wolverine XI and UndercoverClassicist.

PS. This article can't make it to the front page in time for International Tiger Day on July 29 this year, but I'll like to save it for next year. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: (close the peer review) 750 h+ 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

The most majestic creature to walk this earth, in my mind. Will certainly make time for this.

Apologies for the delay. As usual, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number of tiger-related featured pictures not currently used in the article. Obviously, we don't have to include them, but it would be nice for high-quality articles to include the best-quality media.
- They include: File:Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) female 3 crop.jpg, File:Panthera tigris tigris Tidoba 20150306.jpg, and File:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg (all featured on en:wp) and File:Amurtiger-Zoo-Muenster.jpg, File:White Tiger in Touroparc.jpg, File:Standing white tiger.jpg, File:Tiger Zoo Vienna.jpg, and File:Close-up view of the head of a white tiger, yawning with the tongue out.jpg (all featured on Commons).

Etymology & taxonomy

"In the 1st century" probably best to specify either AD or BC
"originates" I think this should be past tense, as you're talking about the Latin word?
"between the early 19th and early 21st centuries; namely the" not sure this is the right use of a semicolon
The repetition of "namely" seems unnecessary.
" calling for recognition of P. t. tigris comprising the Asian mainland tiger populations and P. t. sondaica comprising the populations of the Sunda Islands" isn't this just repeating the end of the previous paragraph? I would cut it.
"the two-subspecies proposal of the comprehensive 2015 study" could be shortened to "the 2015 two-subspecies proposal"
"and recognised the tiger populations in continental Asia as P. t. tigris, and those in the Sunda Islands as P. t. sondaica" more repetition, could be shortened to "recognising only P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica.
"These results were corroborated in 2021 and 2023." while acknowledging WP:CRYSTALBALL, can we say anything about the possible future developments of the classification?
"the classification used by the Cat Classification Task Force in 2017" did the CCTF use or recognise this classification?
I assume that the † in the Population column of the tables means "extinct"? A key to that effect would be helpful.
"from Turkey to around the Caspian Sea" slightly vague; how far southeast or northwest was its range?
I believed that the Siberian tiger was thought to be the largest subspecies. If this is correct, might be worth mentioning?
" all living tigers have a common ancestor 108,000 to 72,000 years ago" think the tense is off

AirshipJungleman29, fixed all. The Siberian and Bengal are both the largest as stated below. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay.

"has a typical felid morphology;" should it be a semicolon or a colon?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Stripes are likely advantageous for camouflage" I'm surprised to see "likely" here: is there any reasonable doubt that it isn't?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The white dots on the ear may play a role in communication." how so? I'm assuming they flap about in certain ways?

Clarified and moved to communication section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The tiger historically ranged from eastern Turkey and northern Afghanistan to Indochina and from southeastern Siberia to Sumatra, Java and Bali." This reads like the range was unbroken, but looking at the infobox map, that is incorrect.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"has a scattered range that includes the" "includes the" suggests that the range covers the Indian subcontinent etc. , would suggest rephrasing.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Amur-Ussuri region" might be useful to say where this is, seeing as neither of "Amur" or "Ussuri" have come up in the article before.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's switching between direct speech "The tiger has/does..." and impersonal wording "There are five digits.../It will take to water..." is somewhat stilted; I would suggest sticking to the former.

I don't understand. We can't keep saying "the tiger..." over and over. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of "Social spacing" is quite lengthy indeed; would suggest splitting or cutting—do we really need exhaustive listings of data from (five?) tiger ranges? It is the most unreadable part of the article.

I suggested keeping the Sundarbans and the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve as they appear to represent the lower and higher ends respectively and as well as Panna which shows how they change during the seasons. BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is difficult to understand re the home ranges? Please suggest how to reformulate this part to improve readability. BhagyaMani (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're referring to all the different number ranges and technical information. Anyhow, better? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to removing this entirely. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is the second person to object to the structure of the paragraph. (first at PR). LittleJerry (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"while in still mode" sounds too technological for my liking

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Death of cubs by predators" rather ungrammatical

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the image of the Chinese medicinal market, do we know what is the tiger claw/penis?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the initiatives outlined in the second paragraph of the "Conservation" section end in 2022-23. Any updates?

Its only been a year. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of tigers and other animals in shows would eventually decline in many countries" seems to contradict "As of 2009, tigers were the most traded circus animals"

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of The Tiger Who Came to Tea? :(

Not mentioned in general sources. We have a main article for more. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Will try to have a closer look soon, but it seems the subspecies table needs work (below some nitpicks just on the table that immediately struck me, but I guess there are more, so it would be great if you could re-read it to clean it up):

The table contains information that should better be discussed elsewhere (e.g., "Linnaeus's scientific description of the tiger was based on descriptions by earlier naturalists such as Conrad Gessner and Ulisse Aldrovandi" – that clearly should rather be the second sentence of "Taxonomy", just after Linnaeus description is mentioned, no?).

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal tiger skins in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London were described as bright orange-red with shorter fur and more spaced out stripes than northern-living tigers like the Siberian tiger – why has the Natural History museum to be mentioned here (unnecessary detail?), and isn't there a recent source for this quite obvious feature (you cite a paper from 1939 for this)?

Revised. No more recent source than Pocock (1939)'s article with descriptions of skins in this apparently huge collection. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question was rather why this needs to refer to the collection in the first place; isn't this feature valid for the entire population? Other Bengal tiger skins do not show this pattern? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question made me read Kitchener (1999) again who wrote that 14 of the total 51 skins in the London museum collection are from Bengal tigers and cautioned that the variation in colour and striping may be much greater than represented by these 51 skins. While I agree that it is not so important to link to the London museum collection, I think it relevant to mention that all descriptions are based on museum specimens. So I amended text in the 1st paragraph. I also removed statements on number of stripes, as Kitchener (1999) showed that the range of stripes from continental to island tiger specimens overlaps and again emphasized that samples are too small to know whether these are representative of populations. Your thoughts? BhagyaMani (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate that number of stripes – i.e. "fewer" or "more" – is a characteristic of only a few museum specimens, which does not allow to generalise to the entire populations; see Kitchener (1999). – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authors are not properly introduced with full names (e.g., you say "Illiger's description", seemingly assuming that the reader already knows that Illiger described the subspecies).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it redundant to repeat names of authors in the 2nd column of the table and therefore shortened descriptions. More details are anyway given in the resp. pages on the populations. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better now. There is still one "Temminck" in the description of the Javan Tiger, I don't think we need that there, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illiger's description was not based on a particular specimen, but he only assumed that tigers in the Caspian area differ from those elsewhere. – why "but" rather than "and"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the column be named "Population" instead of "Populations"? The column "image" is singular, too.

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with long hairs and dense coats – should that be "long hair" and "dense fur"?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check for "hairs" at other places, too. We usually use the singular. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reach as far west as Turkey – "reaching"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It was noted to have"; "It was also said to have"; "The skull is described as"; etc. – Why use such convoluted wording? Any reason why simply "It has", "The skull is", etc. won't work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The type specimen from Sumatra had a dark skin. – I'm confused about this sentence. Only the type specimen had, not the population itself? "Had" means that the type specimen is lost? "Skin" refers to the naked skin under the fur?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has particularly long hairs around the face, a broader and smaller nasal region than other island tigers with many thick stripes. – "It" still refers to the holotype specimen? What exactly is meant with "nasal region" (technical term to be avoided here; better describe where that region is relative to the nose or other landmarks that every reader will understand). In the photograph I do not see "many" thick stripes, only four at the whiskers.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The skull is shorter and broader then the skulls of tigers further south – "than"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and a broad occipital bone – for another population below, you call it "occipital plate", is that referring to the same thing? Also, this should be explained (state where it is). Is this a feature that is visible in a living animal (if so, maybe write "broad back of the skull" or something if possible) or is this only visible when looking at a skeleton?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Panthera tigris sondaica, you give the nominate subspecies and author in the "Population" field, but you don't do the same for the Bengal tiger. Why this inconsistency?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You link Temminck twice in the table, but other authors are only linked once.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the "subspecies" section is a bit confusing and difficult to follow. It could be clearer. It starts with the nine tiger subspecies, but at first does not make clear that this view is already outdated. (Not sure, maybe start with pointing out the current classification, and then dive into the issue with the other proposed subspecies?). More suggestions on the issue in the following comments:
The validity of several tiger subspecies was questioned in 1999. – This is followed by some explanation, but while reading, it first wasn't clear to me that these directly relate to that sentence. Maybe use ":" or directly combine parts of the following sentence with this one to make this clear.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later, you have Therefore, it was proposed to but it was not clear to me that this relates to the 1999 study. Text could be re-arranged for better flow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This two-subspecies view is still disputed by researchers, since the currently recognised six living subspecies can be distinguished genetically. – Now this directly contradicts your previous text: "Disputed by researchers", you mean by "some" researchers? Currently recognised are only two subspecies, not six, right? And of course populations can be distinguished genetically, even single individuals can be, that does not make any sense to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its genetic distinctiveness and separation were corroborated in 2021 and 2023. – "Its" refers to what, exactly? I can't follow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results of a 2018 whole-genome sequencing of 32 samples support the Bengal, Malayan, Indochinese, South China, Siberian and Sumatran tigers being distinct monophyletic tiger clades – Do these researchers propose to recognise the mentioned tigers as distinct subspecies, or what is the conclusion here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 and Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarah Christie

The following is feedback from my sister, Sarah Christie, who was a significant figure in the tiger conservation world in the 90s and 00s. She's one of your cited authors (Seidensticker, Christie & Jackson, Riding the Tiger). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would be very wary of using that 1967 International Zoo Yearbook paper as an authoritative source ('cubs born in spring').I don't recall the details of the paper, but I bet the sample size wasn't high and it was from only one reserve, in India. Probably the authors cited it because it was the only statement available on the matter, which is presumably because nobody's ever found any signfiicant data. I can't give you details, but I and others looked for birth seasonality in our substantial zoo tiger datasets and didn't really find anything significant, and I know that Dale Miquelle and others, looking for it in wild Amur tigers - the one place you might expect it to confer benefits, and where we found a weak bias in our zoo Amur tiger data - also failed to find it, to their and everyone else's surprise. Get the authors to check this with a current expert. (Breeding in zoo tigers can be managed by separation, and a motive exists for ensuring cubs are present through the summer season, so I think wild data are better - they're also much harder to get, of course.) Tara Harris now runs the American Zoo Association Species Survival Plan for tigers (Ron died) and has good links to the WCS tiger people for wild data, she would be a good place to start. Look for contact details for the AZA Tiger SSP Coordinator."

"The captive section is somewhat lacking. It mentions tigers in AZA facilities in passing only. This gives the impression that the US is the only place with zoo tigers which is incorrect, and there's no info on numbers or role. I'm not suggesting an essay, but a couple of paras on current numbers and what roles zoo tigers play might be worth adding in. A LOT of money has been raised by 21CT, primarily from zoos, and the tiger SSP now raises funds for WCS projects. Zoo expertise has also been helpful in the rehab and release stuff particularly in Sumatra. Tara Harris and 21CT will have all this stuff."

"I wonder why there's nothing from Russia in the para on Population Density, which is lower there than elsewhere, in general. Maybe it's because they're too thinly spread there for a proper camtrap study to work and so the data would not be directly comparable. The next bit on social spacing has plenty of Russian info, from radiotracking rather than camtraps."

Sarah also mentioned a point that would be harder to cite, but I'll pass it along:

"I doubt this is worth adding in, not least because I can't think of a way to cite it, but I know of at least two instances in which male tigers have been seen associating with a female and cubs not actually on kills. One is photos by Valmik Thapar in India showing a family group using a pool to keep cool in the hot season; another is a series of camtrap pics by Linda Kerly in Lazovsky NP in Russia, showing a male followed, at intervals, by a female and several cubs along a trail. I don't know if she ever published on that outside the ZSL internal conservation newsletter I put it in (she was our person in Lazo)."

End of Sarah's comments. If you have any questions for her I can pass them along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Christie Please pass this along. Thank you for the comments. I have added numbers for captive tigers in the US, Europe and Asia. The captivity section mainly focuses on tigers used for display and entertainment. I'm sure we could add a little more on the role of zoos in conservation in that respective section. A few paragraphs seems a bit much. We do have tiger conservation as a spin-off article where more information can be added there. ~~I'll look for a replacement for the Yearbook article.~~ I've replaced the Yearbook as a cite in regards to the mating season and gestation period but I have also contacted Dr Harris for her comments. LittleJerry (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Thapar 2004, pp. 55–56 does mention and includes a picture of a male tiger swimming with family. Thats what is referred to with "They socialise and even share kills". LittleJerry (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re fund raising in zoos for tiger conservation projects : the latest I found in this regard is a book chapter dating 2004, see https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20093032085, hence rather outdated for the purpose of this wiki page. If there is nothing more recent, e.g. post-2020, I suggest to skip this issue of funding here. Some authors acknowledged zoos for partly funding their projects, but it seems that the donor landscape has changed in the past 20 years to Panthera Corp and WWF being major funders of tiger focused projects. BhagyaMani (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine

Just recently I happened to cross paths with a female Bengal; quite the experience that was. A second look into the article won't hurt. Comments forthcoming on the 10th of June; if not, give me a ping. Stay tuned for more. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

From a first skim-through looking for typos etc I take it that the article is intended to be in BrE (behavioural, colour, colouration, hypothesised, recognised etc) but a couple of AmE spellings have crept in: "molt" (the OED favours moult, and Chambers calls molt "N. Amer") and, in a section heading, "Behavior [and ecology]". "Flehmen response" becomes "flehman" at one point, which is not in either dictionary (and the OED capitalises Flehmen as it is a proper noun).

Fixed. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More when I have had a proper perusal. Tim riley talk 06:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've found it difficult to spot anything else to quibble about. The few following points are so minor that I can happily support without waiting for a report back.

"transverses across rivers" should be just "traverses rivers" – no "n" and no preposition.
"A young male may have to live as a transient in another male's home range until he is older and strong enough to challenge the resident male. Young males thus have an annual mortality rate of up to 35%" – two points here: I can't work out why "thus" is there – the implied causality is unclear. And in prose (though not in tables) it is usual to write "per cent" rather than using the % symbol.
"Tigers typically move kills ... though they have been recorded dragging it..." – plural "kills" has become singular "it" by the end of the sentence.
"four of these do not harbour tigers any more at least since 2013" – this reads rather awkwardly: perhaps "four of these have no longer harboured tigers since at least 2013" or some such?
"Man-eating tigers tend to be old and disabled" – this looks puzzling at first glance until one realises that homo sapiens is easier prey than elephants or rhinos. Might be worth a word of explanation here.
"Methods to counter tiger attacks have included face masks worn backwards" – eh? How do they help? A brief explanation would be a kindness.
Delightful closing paragraph – Blake, Kipling and Milne: a pleasing combination.

Excellent article, and I can't see anything that doesn't meet the FA criteria. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 11:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Made some changes LittleJerry (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"It is traditionally classified into nine recent subspecies, though some recognise only two subspecies, mainland Asian tigers and island tigers of the Sunda Islands." You imply in the subspecies section that most experts recognise more than two, and I think this should be in the lead.
"overlaps with that of multiple females with whom he has reproductive claims." "claims" is an odd word here.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This two-subspecies proposal was reaffirmed in 2015 through a comprehensive analysis of morphological, ecological, and molecular traits of all putative tiger subspecies." If I understand the source correctly, by molecular traits they mean MtDNA, which supports two subspecies, whereas you say below that whole genome analysis supports more subspecies. If so, this should be clarified. There is a parallel with the debate on Neanderthal/modern human interbreeding. Early results of MtDNA analysis found no evidence of interbreeding, and it was only when methods of whole genome analysis were developed that this was found to be wrong. Was the two subspecies theory based on outdated methods? Mike Christie does your sister have anything to say on this?
I've emailed her and will post any response here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what my sister sent in response to the question.
With regard to the number of species, the key sentence in the article is “In 2017, the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group revised felid taxonomy in accordance with the 2015 two-subspecies proposal and recognised only P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica.” This is cited to Kitchener et al. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group". The key statements on the Cat Group page are “"However, based on recent studies, only two tiger subspecies are proposed:" and "These inconsistencies in the number of proposed tiger subspecies are thought to partly be a result of the lack of genetic samples across the tiger range. Given the varied interpretations of data, the taxonomy of this species is currently under review by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group." I’d recommend that the Wiki article reference this second statement. They certainly should not ditch the two subsp thing in favour of the larger set. Being published later doesn't automatically make it more valid, and the existence of genetic markers capable of distinguishing poulations doesn't necessarily mean those populations should be managed separately, which fundamentally is the point of subsp distinctions.

Note they give the two subsp thing the status of proposed, meaning it is under serious consideration, and don't give that weight to the larger set. I haven't spoken to Urs [one of the two Cat Group Chairs] on this since the noughties, but given ref 12 I suspect they lean towards the two subsp thing but are retaining the rest of the info, and not stating the larger set has been superseded, for political reasons - and to be cautious.

Also, a note about both Sarah’s background and the authority of the specialist group. Sarah was for a few years a member of the core group of the Cat Specialist Group. Per Sarah:
“it might be wise to follow the Cat Group’s lead; while there is no central, international formal authority on taxonomic revisions, IUCN Specialist Group positions on it do tend to be taken up over time, and this particular group is highly competent (most of them are). There is no other method of settling such disputes. It's about consensus, not enforcement.”

And with regard to her credentials for reviewing the article in general, she asked me to add this:
Please ensure your contacts are aware I have no recent information on status in the field, ecological info etc, nor have I ever been a field scientist. They should not consider that those aspects have been reviewed by an expert.)

I checked with Sarah, and she confirmed that she didn't mean that the 2018 studies finding six subspecies should not be mentioned, just that the Cat Group's position should be cited as the most authoritative current statement on the number of subspecies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It was found to have repeated sequences that parallel those in other cat genomes and "an appreciably conserved synteny"." I am not clear what this means - that the tiger's genome has diverged less than that of other cats from their common ancestor?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Results of a phylogeographic study indicate that all living tigers have a common ancestor that lived between 108,000 and 72,000 years ago." No change needed, but it is interesting that this is similar to modern humans, but no subspecies of modern humans are recognised. I wonder whether tigers have diverged faster or humans are treated differently for cultural reasons.

Hmm, I don't know. But given that the tiger's generation length is way shorter than the human's, it may be plausible that it diverged faster. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrids - perhaps mention that male hybrids are infertile and female ones fertile.

Its not mentioned in current sources and I don't like to dig through non-scientific news articles. LittleJerry (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, neither do I. BhagyaMani (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is anyway : WHY are hybrids under the section on Taxonomy ?? They are NOT a taxonomic unit. I suggest therefore to move this subsection under #Captivity, as they were ONLY bred in zoos to experiment. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are the union of two taxons and show how closely related the two parent species are. The section goes into detail on genetics. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Records in Central Asia indicate that it occurred foremost in Tugay riverine forests and inhabited hilly and lowland forests in the Caucasus." "occurred foremost" is an odd expression. I would say that most lived in the Tugay riverine forests if that is what you mean.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"pine forest of Jim Corbett National Park". I suggest adding "in northern India".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"moved an average distance of 4.6 km (2.9 mi) per day". This seems very low. The source says that it is the only large population in mangrove forests, and that the tigers are reluctant to cross wide water channels. You say below that the home ranges in other reserves are much larger, in Sikhote-Alin Nature Reserve around 30 times larger. These factors make this population atypical. Are there no estimates for other populations?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Though the female and male act amicably, females are more tense towards each other at a kill." This is clumsy and the first part repeats what you have just said. Maybe "Females are most tense with each other at a kill."

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tigers will move around their ears to communicate with the white spots, particularly during aggressive encounters and between mothers and cubs". "communicate with the white spots" sounds odd. Maybe "display their white spots".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph starting "Tigers learn to hunt from their mothers". This switches back and forth apparently at random between singular and plural cases.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation - protection of tigers has presumably collapsed in Myanmar due to the civil war. Is there no information available on this?
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FM

While it already has a good bunch of reviewers, it's such an important and long article that it probably needs as many as it can get, so I'll mark my spot for now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The range map and cladograms could be scaled up (with the upright parameter), per MOS:IMGSIZE, as they are almost impossible to decipher at default size.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The following tables are based on the classification of the species Panthera tigris provided in Mammal Species of the World,[9] and also reflect the classification recognised by the Cat Classification Task Force in 2017.[12]" You should make it clearer in this paragraph that what's shown reflects more traditional schemes, and that the edition of Mammals of the World you cite is from 2005, so quite long before any meaningful genetic work.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a potentially valid six subspecies scheme, showing even more subspecies than that in the table seems misleading. The table is already extremely long, and I don't see any good reason other than completism to give subspecies that no one recognises today their own space, they should instead be covered under the entries of the potentially valid subspecies (one of the six possible ones) they belong to .

The DNA papers focused on the living subspecies, they did not invalidate the three extinct ones, which are still recognized in the literature. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]