User talk:Altaileopard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello!
Altaileopard is more present in the german Wiki

You can learn more about me at my page Deutscher Altaileopard. If I don´t aswer you here, leave me a message on my german diskussion.
Thank you!


Contents

[edit] South China Tiger

There are 2 subspecies of tigers in africa training, 2 of them are bengal tigers, and the other 3 are south china tigers. Pls see the facts before editing. Do not edit anything on the south china tigers yet before u read this page. http://www.savechinastigers.org/ This website is the homepage of the african rewilding project of south china tigers. All of the new pictures are found there. And are u a tiger expert? The pictures clearly show south china tigers, the stripe pattern of the south china tiger may be similiar to the indochinese tiger but if u look closely enough ,u can see the difference. So please stop editing the facts.

Sorry. I can not find anything about P. t. amoynesis in africa on this page and moreover I don´t think, that this page is a reliable source!!!! --Altaileopard 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OK I found something, but even if there is an introduction project in africa, this should be mentioned only in one or two sentences and it is enough to show a single image of this tigers. That is not typical for the subspecies. And..... Do you have the permission, to load these images up in wikimedia?--Altaileopard 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Ya, i have the permission of the webpage. Anyways, south china tigers are very cricitally endangered, it is rare to see their pictures thus i uploaded so many pictures for people to look at.

[edit] Panthera

Do you have a reference to the study that you site regarding the hyoid bone? "But new studies show, that the ability to roar is due to other morpholigical features, especially of the larynx." Dddstone 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The refernece is walkers mammals of the world (in the article under Literature). I dont have the book here at the moment, so I am not shure about the page. Its somewhere under Genus Panthera.--Altaileopard 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to ask about the page too, but having the rest of the book info is sufficient for now.
Thank you for your contribution, and I appreciate you asking me to look over it. I tweaked a few punctuation/grammar things and one spelling, but most of mine was linking a few things and adding a cite template. The latter is *not* required but often desired, to know more exactly the parts of the article the references refer to. TransUtopian 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you TransUtopian, for looking over it. I think you are right, it would have been better to make a cite template in this case.--Altaileopard 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asiatic Lion Reintroduction

Hi Atulsnischal, Good work with the Reintroduction of asiatic lion in Kuno-Palpur, but I think it is not necessary to have a separate article for that. As the same text is also contained in Asiatic Lion and Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, I think that Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project should be deleted. Moreover I think the block "Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project" should be deleted either in Asiatic lion or in Kuno Wildlife sanctuary. I think it is not good to have the same contents twice ore more. What do you think about that? Gruß, --Altaileopard 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leopard

I just made a basic tempelate of the information for the three pages hoping they will evolve into three seperate paragraphs in time with a basic introduction on two pages and the Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project can have the project in more detail as it is a very important and costly project that has got caught in state politics. Year by year new achievements can be added to the project page (with time in dacades to come and relevent news links etc).

Thanks

Atulsnischal

Hmm, I would prefer to have the main info in the article Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary and a short overwiev with a link to that page on Asiatic lion (or probably the other way round). There are so many introduction projects for several animals in the world. I dont think it is good to have an article for each of them in the wiki. And if the three articles evolve to three different, but equal pages about that theme, the user has to read all three to be shure that he will get the whole information. Otherwise you have to do all changes always in three articles. Actually you can add new achievements also in an article about Kuno sanctuary. In the german wiki we always try to avoid redundant contents. Anyway.... the asiatic lion is a great animal. Greetings --Altaileopard 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

copied from User talk:Flavio.brandani:
In this edit you added P. l. goojratensis and several invalid "subspecies" to the lion subspecies. What are your sources for that? Where was the range of this "subspecies"? The indian subspecies (in Gir as well as in captivity) is called P. l. persica and the link of goojratensis leads to this subspecies.
The status of the Marozi is doubtful and by far not clear. Even in the article it is claimed to be a hybrid. Moreover its already mentioned in an extra part under the subspecies. After "A. Turner: The big cats and their fossil relatives. Columbia University Press, 1997.ISBN 0-231-10229-1" P. toscana is not a lion subspecies. About P (l.) youngi I am not shure, but I will try to find good sources. You said my edit was vandalism, but you added wrong information which is not confirmed by sources. I would rather call this vandalism.--Altaileopard 10:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

1)P. leo goojratensis is a synonim of p. leo persica institueted by Smee

2)P. leo youngi is a real prehistorical subspecies of a lion... see it.wiki for more dettails

3)Marozi is an hybrid of a leopard to a lion

Excuse me if I told that yours edits were crudelty vandalics... but you do not theath me to blocked... I am an Italian user persecuitated on it.wiki for pest control...

I WORK FOR ADORNED EN.WIKI I'M NOT A VANDAL Flavio/Tigre Reietta 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me too, I was a bit irritated, but let´s talk about the facts.
  • If goojratensis is a synonym for persica, the name should be mentioned in this way behind this valid subspecies or completely left away.
  • I am not well informed Panthera (leo) youngi, but this article shows no sources for the information about this animal to me.
  • The marozi is likely a hybrid and should not be mentioned under the lion subspecies exept the sentence which is already at the bottom of the block.
--Altaileopard 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Copied from User talk:Flavio.brandani:

Hello, its me again. You called my revert cruel vandalism do you have a proper reference for this edit ?Otherwise I will revert it again.Greetings--Altaileopard 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


My dear Leopard..I study the tiger for many years and I'm absolutly certainly that Lecoqui tiger is a synonyms of Caspian tiger... Search on google and do not rollback my legal edits...I'M VERY ANGRY WITH YOU....EN WIKI IS MY last possibility to exist... On it.wiki I were blocked for pest controll by the cruel user Ribbeck...I WAS INNOCENCE..YOU KNOW? I WAS INNOCENCE... Flavio/Tigre Reietta 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a proper source.--Altaileopard 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I was searching a bit and found a good source for the synonym P. t. lecoqi for P. t. virgata. [1].
But that should not be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Almost every tiger subspecies has several invalid scientific names. If you want to have it in the article, I think you should write a short extra block and note also the other synonyms like serpentrionalis ect. --Altaileopard 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re

Dear leopard... forgive me if I bollate yours edit as vandalism... however lecoqui existed... I'm not a vandal but unhappines exiliated user...:-) kiss tvb Flavio/Wiki pest 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request

Hi dear Altai leopard if do you speak italian and english could you menthoring me? I have desperated. yours Flavio/Tigre Reietta 12:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Did I get you right? you wants me to be your mentor? I don´t know how to do this, but I can try to answer, you if you have questions.--Altaileopard 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know my native language dear AltaiLeopard (P. pardus orientalis ;-) )? Now I tent to explain you in my atrocious english why should I research a menthor. Uther SRG (Stacey Robert Greenstein) is a patient (=moderate) user. But he will be block me for 6 month if I continued to put incorrect or partial incorrect edits. So I research a user who try to help me to become a good wikipedian. For dettails in better english you could contact Uther SRG. Yours Flavio/Wiki pest 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, It seems to be, that you are probably a strange guy, but i believe you, that you want to help wikipedia. In this edit you added two subspecies. But the problem is that you gave no sources from where this info is. If i search in google scholar, which shows usually good papers ect. i can find nothing about V. t. lankavensis: [2]. You have to add comprehensible, reliable sources to your edits. If your englisch is to bad, ask native speakers, (if no one wants you can ask also me). Thats in principle all you have to do.--Altaileopard 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bornean Clouded Leopard

thumb What makes you certain this is actually a Marbled Cat?--Pharos 20:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Every picture I ever saw of a clouded leopard, shows quite big black spots on the forelimbs.[3] [4] [5][6]
The animal on the image shows very small spots like a typical marbled cat.[7][8][9]. Moreover the whole body is to slender built for a clouded leopard. I am 99,999 % shure this image shows Pardofelis marmorata.--Altaileopard 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Siberian tiger and bengal - unconfirmed data

Hi

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

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

Hi Altai,

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

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

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

Where is the refernce for me to read this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I can not open this page.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

An intermediate result could be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the table shows the weight.

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

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

Hi Altai, So the 306 kg turned out to be a captive specimen? I suppose you have Schaller book now. He mentioned 2 large males, one 292 kg and another 320 kg. The 292 kg was 3.2m long, shot in Kumaon, by E.H. Morbey. This weight seems so reasonable with this size.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to continue debating which is the largest any more. But if you're interested enough in tigers, you may be interested in this: Madla and another male of Panna,

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

are not 250 kg. Dr. Chundawat sloppily(in my opinion, supidly) brought a 550 lbs scale, and both males easily bottom it out. Madla has a neck diameter of 90cm, much larger than the 80 cm neck of the 600 lbs Sauraha tiger, so his chest girth is supposed to be larger too. And looking at the picture(he's the bigger of the 2 in the photo at the top of the page), you can see his enormous forequarter. When I first saw his pic (on another site), I thought it must've been a Kaziranga male, cos' this is the most muscular, and the largest too, of all the tigers I've seen, larger even than the bachelor of Powlagarh. The 250 kg Charger and the 600 lbs B2 of Bandhavgarh (B2's pic appear on both the tiger and bengal tiger wiki articles) look nothing like him. So all in all, Madla apparently weighs way way above 250 kg. But the largest of them all is Hairyfoot, which was never scaled, and was estimated at 600 lbs, was described to be much more massive than Madla, and the largest tiger Chundawat's seen. In my opinion, if the appearance difference is noticeable between tigers of these sizes and builds, their weight may be as much as 50, 60 kg, or even more apart. The biggest astonishment is that Panna has a low-prey density than other parts of India. They both appear in this documentary: Tigers of Emerald forest. It's good to know that 350 - 360 kg tigers still survive in the wild today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.243.66 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No I still do not have "The deer and the tiger". It costs 40 Euro and it is quite old, so I am not shure if I should buy it, but perhaps I can get it per university-library. But I have Big Cats: Kingdom of Might and found that, they describe the reputed 385 kg male as a bulky cattle killer. (Probably not able to hunt fast wild prey). I think it is a good, but actually not really high scientific book, but I am still glad to have it, as the photos are really great, especially these of the snow leopard.
To the link: I know these documentation about the tigers of Panna from TV (and recorded it on VHS-Video) and I am always astonished again about the size of this huge male Madla, when it walks over the road in one scene. Actually I am not shure right now, if the male in the photo at the top of the page of your link, shows Madla, but I am shure that these two animals are mating in the TV-documentation and the smaller one is a female. Compared to the female, this male (Madla?) looks big, but not really giant.... But thanks for the link.--Altaileopard 13:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's Madla. And I've seen the photo of the 2.48 m long, 177 kg T-2 tigress of Nagarahole, taken by Karanth. Compared to the Panna female in the pic, she's just a shrimp. And Madla makes the 257kg T-3 and 250 kg T-4 look like bantamweight boxers. The 857 lbs tiger didn't eat a buffalo, he ate a buffalo calf the night before, according to the Smithsonian institute now housing him, so his weight is surely larger than the estimated 715 lbs empty-stomached. You may be also interested in this: the longest tigers are from the north, but the largest chest girths are from south/central India. Brander recorded a 150cm chest-girthed male in his book:Wild animals in central India. present-day madla and Hairyfoot, tigers of Kanha, and those short, stocky Nagarahole tigers are proof. That means, tigers of south/central provinces are shorter but stockier than Northern tiger (Kaziranga excluded perhaps). So the myth of northern Indian tigers bulkier(weighing heavier) than others is complete BS. In fact, there's an enormous HERMAPHRODITE tiger/tigress killed by M.D. Goring-Jones in Nigiri hills, south India in 1941, weighing at least 318 kg, 3.04 m long. The most bizarre stuff here's not the weight, but the fact that it's a HERMAPHRODITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.147.75 (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tsavo lion

Unfortunately that's the only male lion I saw at Tsavo. I also saw two lone females and a group of lions resting in the grass with only their ears visible. This National Geographic article might be of interest, though. Regards, Mgiganteus1 12:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I thought we'd try and get the whole capitalization issue sorted before we lionized further so I wanted to get everyone's feelings on it - can you please input into the capitalization debate on lion talk page.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snow Leopard

Since I have seen your posts on the Snow Leopard talk page, I wonder if you could take a look at Talk:Snow_Leopard#Recent_Changes. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eland

just pointing out that the eland quote is correct - you may read the articles at [10] - also, I have a great many very good leopard and lion photos if you whish to add them to the sites you are editing. If so, I can download them.

Profberger 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I do not understand that with the eland. Which edit do you mean? Really good images are always nice, but I think especially in case of lion there are already many good pictures at wikimedia commons. Some good images of wild leopards would be still desirable.--Altaileopard 08:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you mean that Talk:leopard#Eland. I don´t want to exclude completely, that a leopard can kill an eland. But this page is not a reliable refernece to me. And an adult eland is very Iarge. I once saw on TV a female leopard attacking a injured Hartebeest, and even that animal was to much for the cat.--Altaileopard 12:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This video could be of interest.--Altaileopard 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A colleague of mine and I published the paper in question documenting the kill of an adult eland by a leopard. As you may note in the references, leopard have in fact killed animals as large as eland and young giraffe. I have a number of good leopard photos. Where would you like me to download them?

Profberger 16:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The PDF did not open when I tried it for the first time, but now it works. It looks like a reliable source to me. You can write in the leopard article, that leopards kill in rare cases even adult elands. Please add a citation to that edit. If you do not know how to do that, just ask. At Wikimedia commons you can create an account and than it is very simple to upload Images.--Altaileopard 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Your leopard images are really good. Thanks.--Altaileopard 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red deer subspecies

Hello, I tend to disagree, the Shou and MacNeill's Deer actually are Central Asian Red Deer. What I do agree with, is that the Bactrian Deer, Yarkand Deer, and Kashmir Stag are more closely related. However, the shou has 5-pronged antlers much like the rest of the Central Asian Red Deer. My understanding is Shou is often referred to subspecifically as "wallichi" and "affinis" interchangeably. There have been discoveries of another subspecies distinct from Shou and MacNeill's deer, but not much is known at the point. Also, it has already been determined that "macneilli" and "kansuensis" are the same animal and designated as "macneilli".

The best person to contact or email is Dr. Valerius Geist, who has written many books on deer. (User: dlc_73) December 15, 2007

[edit] Wikignome Award

I hereby award this Wikipedia:wikignome award to Altaileopard for help in chiselling away at the mighty lion, which is now featured. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for upgrading the lion article. One Year ago this article was really bad and now it is great. I have seen, that you already started to work on the tiger. Probably I can help you a bit also with this cat.--Altaileopard 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger pictures

Hi Altai,

I found a web page containing the pics of some of the largest bengal tigers in history, including the 600 lbs Sauraha male tiger, T-105 measured by Mel Sunquist in "tiger moon" (the last pic), and there's a pic of The Bachelor of Powalgarh too. I find the Sauraha male(3.1m total length, 1.4m chest girth), smaller, less stockier than the Bachelor. You might be interested:

http://ppardus.012webpages.com/

Btw, in "Der tiger", did mazak say anything about the size of the bear-killer male tiger? Is he especially big? And did he mention case of Bengal tigers hunting gaur/water buffalo?

Lastly, did Mazak provide any morphological method of estimating tiger weight based on body measurements, like body length, girth etc? This is the data I got of the largest tiger from central India, measured by Dunbar Brander and mentioned in his classic: Wild animals of Central India:

Total length 9' 11" (302 cm) Head+body 7ft 3" (221 cm) !!! Chest 59" (150 cm) Forearm: 21" Head: 39" (99 cm) Shoulder height: 43" (110 cm)

If Mazak dis mention morphology methods, do you mind giving me some guess about this huge male weight? Brander estimated a weight of 272 kg(600 lbs), but I disagree. From the data, he's larger than the Sauraha male(head and body 1.95m, chest 140, and shoulder height about 1m). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.146.29 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mammal collab

OK, I'll set this up here - feel free to nominate and foraward to any other editor interested in furry critters. We'll see how it flies and I'll drop a note in the signpost.

Nominating key articles is ok, even if you can't work on them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I think that looks like a good thing. I plan to expand the snow leopard next week.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Wolf: explanation remind

Hello Altaileopard

You have make a mistake in article about Canis lupus lycaon and Canis lycaon. Because eastern wolf in Algonquin,Algonquin-type is really distinct species(or more probably is some species as red wolf), type Ontario-type Eeastern wolf is only Canis lupus (in larger than Canis rufus lycaon and description in XIX century). This is two separate form wolf for mistake. The earlier article about two wolves Eastern was proper.

Yo look. for sources PDF: http://www.nrdpfc.ca/files/Report_to_COSEWIC2001.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caniche (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Canis lycaon and C. lupus lycaon describes the same animal:
"Eastern wolves are mainly viewed as: (1) a smaller subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus lycaon)... ...Although debate persists, recent molecular studies suggest that the eastern wolf is not a gray wolf subspecies, nor the result of gray wolf/coyote hybridization. Eastern wolves were more likely a distinct species, C. lycaon"
(from C.J. Kyle, A.R. Johnson, B.R. Patterson, P.J. Wilson, K. Shami, S.K. Grewal and B.N. White: Genetic nature of eastern wolves: Past, present and future. Conservation Genetics, Volume 7, Number 2 / April 2006. Pages 273-287 )
See at Talk:Eastern Wolf#C. (l.) lycaon.
Your PDF is bot a proper reference, because it is not published.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


You have all article or only abstract? Eeee. Canis lupus lycaon is not smaller subsepcies - this is medium size, the Canis lycaon is true small. How often I must repeat YOu!!!! You conversation with biologist know Eastern Wolf. I see that You weak know population wolves in America. End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caniche (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the whole publication and I will discuss with you only on base of proper references. --Altaileopard (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

[edit] anatolian leopard

unfortunately the picture is too small, only the headlines are readable. And the headlines don't say anything about the leopard being anatolian it just says the "the leopard that tore apart (or can tear apart) people" --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. But the newspaper is from Turkey, right? Then the leopard might also be....--Altaileopard (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 17:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wild boar range info

I am doing a research paper on hunting in antiquity. I would like to know where you got the information regarding the historical range of the wild boar, especially in the areas of modern Jordan and Israel. 0:23, 8 April, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod2003 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i was inactive for some time. This map is based mostly on:
  • V. G. Heptner: Mammals of the Sowjetunion Vol. I Ungulates. Leiden, New York, 1989 ISBN 9004088741
By looking at the range of Jordan and Israel I saw, that there may be a mistake in the map. I did this map a long time ago and tried to combine present and historical range. Therefore I had some mistakes in this map after uplodading it. I already changed most of them by uploading a new map, but I actually forgot to change the "near east" in the new version. I have no literature here at the moment but I think they occured in israel in historical times. Sorry for my mistake. I will change the map and give you more detailed informtion soon.--Altaileopard (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The Shadow-Fighter

"sorry, but that is vandalism. You can not make an edit without a refernce only because of what you think. I woud appreciate to see your account deleted. You are a either vandal, stupid or just to young."

Do you really think that's an appropriate tone to take with another editor? see WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. He's made a lot of useful edits, this is just one mistake. He's not a vandal, because it wasn't vandalism. He's not stupid, because he was able to justify his actions, and he's not too young or i'd expect the rest of the edits to be a similar quality. Try and take a nicer tone next time? preferably without personal attacks. Ironholds 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hä? whats going on here? My first question to him was in a very appropriate tone: User talk:The Shadow-Fighter#Are you a vandal? because of this edit . That is a very bad edit, and he added this wrong information in many more articles. I gave him an introduction how to make a reference User talk:The Shadow-Fighter#ABOUT THE SHADOW-FIGHTER and told him that this is very important to work in wikipedia. Instead of doing better edits with references I had to read this: wrong unreferenced edit about Caspian tiger after warning at Talk:Caspian Tiger#"Extinct in the wild". That made me to think that he is a vandal. Sorry, but I have not seen any good (perhaps not even one correct) edit from the Shadow-Fighter in the mammal articles. But if he wants I will try to help him getting better.--Altaileopard (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Platypus929

Please see WP:VANDAL for the correct procedure for warning users of vandalism. Leaving messages on the user's talk page directly accusing them of being a vandal is not constructive, and does not help the community. -- Mark Chovain 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I accuse only Users, who make obvioulsy wrong and vandalazing edits. Many edits (all?) of Platypus929 User talk:Platypus929 are real vandalism. I do not like to have such people in the community. So I can not see the problem. Probably the professional users in the engl. wiki should be a bit more draconic against vandals and dilettants and not so draconic against users, which really want to upgrade articles. Perhaps the quality would be not so low here and the "community" would be more like a community. --Altaileopard (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe vandals should be blocked faster than they are these days. The problem is, if you don't use the standard edit warnings, then it makes it hard to block them. By putting hand written warnings on their page, you actually delay them being blocked. -- Mark Chovain 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I will try to follow the correct prcedure in the next case.--Altaileopard (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] marsupial lion

If you don't care much about the detail, then don't leave your comment on the talkpage for Thylacoleonidae. You comment is about the species T.carnifex, commonly known as the "marsupial lion". So go and move your comment to that page. By the way, the ony reason they use Pleistocene is to be more descriptive. Cazique (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And because the Name Pleistocene marsupial lion is more descriptive, we should use it for this species. The term "marsupial lion" can be used for all thylocoleonids.--Altaileopard (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is your viewpoint, please don't try and decide something for the world to follow. Yes, it is more descriptive but fact is the "Marsupial Lion" is the name of the animal. You can't go making up your own name just because you think it is a better name. That's like me changing your user to leopardman because I think that name is better. Cazique (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not true and I think it´s not fair, there are many scientific publications calling it Pleistocene marsupial lion (See for example: [11].--Altaileopard (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, what's your point? I already told you scientific publications such as that only add Pleistocene to be more descriptive. The common name is "Marsupial Lion", just like the common name for Panthera Tigris is "Tiger". Cazique (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no nomeclature for common names. Every common name is only to be more descriptive. you can write (1) the felid Panthera tigris altaica, (2) the tiger Panthera tigris altaica and (3) the Siberian tiger Panthera tigris altaica. None of them is wrong, but the last one is the most descriptive and therefore the best. And as there is only one species of Pleistocene marsupial lions, it would be the best name for an article about T. carnifex.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No it wouldn't because it is not it's name. Just like the Wooly Mammoth. The Wooly Mammoth is called the "Wooly Mammoth". The Marsupial Lion is called the "Marsupial Lion". The Wooly Mammoth is not called the "Pleistocene Wooly Mammoth" even though this is more descriptive. The Marsupial Lion is not called the "Pleistocene Marsupial Lion" even though this is more descriptive. Do you understand? Cazique (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no one, who decides, what´s an animals common name! There are rules for latin names, but not for the common names!. As there is only one mammoth species for which we know that it had a wooly fur and other mammoths are called steppe mammoth ect., the term wooly mammoth is sufficient for the species and therefore very frequently used in scientific literature. This frequent usage is the reason why it is called in wikipedia wooly mammoth, not because "it is it´s name". It´s name is Mammuthus primigenius! --Altaileopard (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, do not add your POV and try and change the world. Fact is "Marsupial Lion" is the common name. You want to change this common name through wikipedia, but this is not the place to do such a thing. I'm blunt and honest, you need to accept the facts. Cazique (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment.--Altaileopard (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)