Talk:Siberian tiger/Archive 1

message: The Siberian Tiger is the Siberian Tiger everywhere, except perhaps in China. This name change was instituted by an anonymous user,  66.75.31.229. Look at this user's other contributions. Surely this was a hoax, was it not? Wetman 02:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And Koreans tend to call it the Korean Tiger. --Dan 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Can anyone verify this? I have been told reports of Siberian tigers having so much force in their swipes that they are able to instantly kill a full grown cow.
You may find the answer here:
http://www.discovervancouver.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=68779&whichpage=2
It says tiger can kill gaur 1.7 tons and water buffalo 1.5 tons, so a 400 kg cow can be killed with 1 blow, no big deal. Take it easy! There are 2 posted videos of gaur and buffalo too. Giant indeed!!!!
-G
Thats not true at all. This is a hoax again. Check your sources. They`re not worth anything.
-N-
"Killing with a single paw strike" is pure myth. This has NEVER been proven, and all claims HAVE NOT been verified. Don't forget about that. A tigers paw is cushioned, it not gold plated or something to be used as a metal club. On rare occasions they do kill, especially when the carotid artery is lacerated. If they can kill with a single swipe insantly, why strangulate your prey for 30 minutes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.138 (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Able to kill a full grown cow with one swipe of its paw?

message: Both this and Bengal Tiger claim to be the biggest.  Which is correct?
It's said that it will attack asiatic black female bears under 600 pounds and generally avoid 800 pounds +
Looking at the asiatic black bears link, THEY COME NO WHERE CLOSE TO THAT WEIGHT, the heaviest they get by looking at the average weight is about 200 kilograms, it's recorded average is at 150 kilograms, which is no where close to 600 pounds. Something is wrong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.228.96 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 300 kg is to much for average weight. After "Walker´s mamals of the world" siberian tigers weigh up to 300 kg!--Altaileopard 15:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: The article says Hodori is a Siberian Tiger.  I didn't have much luck (in a short 5 minute search) finding any respectable sites saying he is a Siberian Tiger.  Tiger just mentions him being a "stylized tiger". Is this accurate? Ash Lux 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1988 Olympics 

message: Does anyone have a reference to siberian tigers eating grizzly bears? Grizzly bears can be 2X heavier than a siberian tiger. Here is a website that talks about pit fights between grizzlies, lions and bulls.
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html
That and this is their territory...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grizzly_map.gif'''
As you demonstrated quite effectively fights between grizzlies and tigers are quite impossible a rather large Pacific ocean lying between the two... the asiatic brown bear on the other hand isn't so lucky. The truth of the matter is the big Siberian males are quite capable of hunting down the smaller brown bears. However it is important to note that this is through hunting not a head to head fight, they would be stalked, chased and killed as prey not as a competitor, specifically tigers have been known to do this to bears during the winter while they're hibernating. However in a face to face fight the tiger is at a great disadvantage having to deal with the heavy club-like paws of brown bears which shatter the relatively fragile skull of the feline. In the end the only real predation that takes place is tigers eating bears while bears may get into fights with tigers I don't think they have the hunting skills to stalk one effectively.
So, you are another member of the type who thinks bear's claw is formidable. Sad but true, they are not. Have a good look at the grizzly's claws again. Are they something that can shatter the skull? To be accurate, they are capable of making some sratches on the skin of the tiger's skull! Who have seen a brown bear take on a tiger? No, that's something written on newspaper and some scientific journals: infotainment. Because, the reality is: Tiger is formidable for all types of bear, 600kg or not. The only thing of advantage for bear is its large size, and there's no reason why a softy brown bear would try to attck a tiger to steal its kills. That is highly fatal, and the point for that? Food! And the bear can get sufficient food from plants and carcasses found in the forest. No reason for taking on a tiger for prey kills, that's it. After all, bear is only bear,omnivorous. the lairweb is a stupid site that would not respond to my email regarding that stupid story. Note that,Siberian tiger is average, and gentle, but indochinese and bengal tigers that can kill very large wild cattles and break open the neck of water buffaloes with their sharp, powerful claws will just laugh at the mild-mannered brown bear if the bear wants to get a hand on their kills.
But, one thing to note: Nothing is absolute. Sometimes a tiger(Siberian) just walks sliently away when a large brown bear approaches the kill scene. Why? Who knows? My best guess is that the animal is too small-hearted of a tiger ( usually an inexperienced tiger), or it's simply not hungry and so does not want an unnecessary fight.
Actually it's not the claws in and of themself that make them dangerous, just the weight of them and the bone and muscle around them that make their paws into maces that can shatter the relatively fragile feline skull, as was proved by some Californians who set up Grizzly vs. Tiger and Grizzly vs. Lion fights. In those fight the big cats would often come up against the bear, head on aiming to bite it's neck and instead get their head smashed in. Now that might seem to make it a win for bears, but these are far from natural conditions and play to the bear's habits more then the lion or the tiger's. As stated before tigers have been found to hunt down and kill bears, something which hasn't been returned to them, hunting wise there should be no suprise to find that the tiger wins out, fight wise it's also no suprise to see the bear win because of the way it's built and how it lives life. There are still to this day occational stories of big male Siberians lost to brown bears, the opposing cases of tigers hunting them are probably ommitted for they likly occur more often and aren't a species of such concern. Finnally the lairweb is a good site that has some of the best info about tigers on the web and it has been for a long time, the fact that they don't respond only means that the site, quite old now, isn't that actively maintained.
-Amur_Tiger
You made a good and constructive argument. I just want to add on something: In the natural habitat, bears hardly use their claws at all, as it has no strength to do enough damage. In fact, in all of the documentaries about bears, I never saw them utilize the claws, save for digging and wrestling. i owned about 80 DVD of wildlife documentaries, read many animal books, and have watched many others on diffrent channel, i never saw this once, except in the for-fun-only Animal face-off. Now, the muscles. Yes, the bear posesses good muscles, but they are nothing like that of a buffaloes 1200 kg or a rhino 2 tons. the sharp claws of the tiger, being about 9 - 12cm in length, can tear apart the muscles and thick skins of these animals,so i don't think tiger will have trouble with bear's muscles and weight. The only downside of siberian tiger is their weak ability in combating powerful preys. indian tigers have special tactics when dealing with much larger and dangerous preys, but not Amur tiger. So, when combating, i would say Siberian tiger has a little more chance to win than brown bear. One thing for certain: There is no such pit fight between old grizzly and big cats in which bears kill with a blow, that's so impossible. If a bear wins a tiger or lion, it must win by biting, that's that.
Certainly the Siberians don't have quite the same megafauna as their Bengal bretheren have but I'd be highly suprised to see that they would be incapable of bringing down of them down. I'd also like to know what you mean by 'special techniques'. Also their claws aren't actually meant for tearing through skin but for getting a good grip on their prey to prevent them from being thrown off. Finnally I would like you to explain why makes you think that pit fights of this sort have never been arranged and what makes you so certain that bears must bite to fight.
-Amur_Tiger
::A Siberian Tiger can kill a cow with one swipe of it's paw. Excluding the claws, the sheer impact force would kill it.
-G
Good question Amur_tiger. About the special technique, i think it would be more fun for you to figure out for yourself, as I think you like tiger quite a lot ( your name says it, doesn't it? If wrong, I,m sorry). Forget about the bengal, they don't occur with brown bear, only with very large ungulates like elephant, thick-skinned rhino and wild cattles.While  your arg about the tiger claw is true, it's not enough, claws are used for fighting as well. Fighting large animals, many times its size, the claws have been used to tear of the skin, because it's risky and inefficient to always attack with teeths. Elephant is the most prominent example. For small preys, the claws have been utilized as well, ex: procupine weighed about 18 kg, which sometimes lead to tiger's death. the tiger's claws are sharp, so no matter how thick or muscled the prey, it still can break open it. The bear, why it doesn't use claws? Because I have never seen it, though this is my 14th year of watching and reading animals. "Bear of the world", written by someone who live 40 years with brown bear, also accompany my conclusion, as does "living with the white bear", wriiten by a russian who live many years with Polar bear. If the claw is such a powerful weapon, the bear must have utilize it every so often, why waste it? i have seen brown bear bite myriad times, but not even once have i seen bear use claws to rain blows(forget about rain, even 2, 3 blows continously are so very rare). Wild alaska, the life of mammals, polar bear: shadow on the ice, and be the animal are recent bear documentary i collected, with the last one having brown bear fighting each other, they use teeth to kill, forepaws just to push. Lastly, pit fight of this sort has certainly been arranged, the bear perhaps won some fight, but the provider must make it more interesting by saying that the bear wins by clawing. I don't think it's possible to get a pic or a video of bear killing with paws, for it's not possible.
In short, the myth that tiger is no match for large male brown is not true. Tiger is a match for bears of all sizes, to be objective. Bison is more than a match for any brown bear, so the 2nd myth, grizzly kills adult bison is also unrealistic.
I have studied tigers for 47 years and i have seen 11 Siberian Tiger vs Brown Bears Fights. The bear usually tries to push the tiger in order to make a bite but i have seen the tigers jump and knock the bear over and then biting them continuasly to inflict damage to their neck bones. In all the fights between these animals there is no instance in which the bear killed a tiger. In 4 of these fights the bear backed down or ran away and in the rest it died.
In one case i saw the biggest tiger i had ever seen killing the Kamachatka brown bear with just 2 blows. Now when you say the bear is over 3 times the size of the Siberian tiger you are wrong. The largest asiatic brown bear subspecies the kamachatka brown bear rarely exceeds 900lbs and the largest was only 991lbs (450kg) and on average they only weigh 230kg(506lbs) compared to the tigers average 227kg (500lbs). So now you know its not muscle by muscle.The biggest Siberian tiger i have seen was larger than the largest kamachatka Brown Bear i saw as the Tiger when tranqualized because he needed to be measured and cured of the wound he had suffered in a fight with another Tiger. I measured him to be 10 foot 8 inches and he weighed 302kg ( 664lbs) while the largest kamachatka brown bear i have ever seen measured 9 foot 3 inches and weighed rougly 265kg(583bs). I have heard about bengal tigers killing bears easily and they do in fact prey on bears if they can find one; therefore its the Tiger that usually kills the bear.
let me add one more thing: every where in the world, brown bear tips the scale at about 450-500kg. the reason why they reach 700 kg is because they overeat to accumulate energy for hibernation. that extra weight does not add any extra strength to the bears. So if you say a 680 kg brown bear in winter is formidable, it's only as formidable as another 450 kg bear in summer. Siberian tiger has no problem driving off brown bear from their kills. 
-S-
----------------------------------------
Wow!! I cant believe I`m reading this on Wikipedia.
I know you`re lying, since I have been studying the interaction between tiger and bears for many years. I know you are lying because you have not seen 11 fights, and you have not seen tigers kill an adult brown bear with two blows with their paws. This is so pathetic.
A tiger is NOT capable to kill large animals with their paws. In fights they use their paws very active, but have never killed a grown bear or another tiger with them. 
There are no evidence of tigers killing any grown brown bears heavier than apr 160- 170 kg. Most bears killed are actually cubs. Just about the rest of killed bears are small females killed in the den while hibernating. 
There are lots of hoaxes and propaganda about tigers. I hope we dont need to read more about it on Wikipedia.
-Norw.-'''
Actually, you are wrong. Richard Perry, in his World of the Tiger gives accounts on tigers killing cattle by smashing their heads with their paws. Stephen Mills in his Tiger gives an account of a bengal tiger which regularly killed sloth bears by sneaking behind them and breaking their backs with a single paw swipe.
Also, I suggest you go to googlebooks and read the chapter on tigers in Mammals of the Soviet Union.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UxWZ-OmTqVoC&pg=PA177&dq=mammals+of+the+soviet+union+tigers+bear&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA175,M1
"A tiger will even tackle a bear, sometimes one much larger than itself. Having tracked its victim, the predator selects a rock or windfelled tree from which it can ambush the quarry  from the leeward side. It springs upon the approaching bear from an overhead position, catches it by the chin with the claws of one forepaw and the throat with the claws of the other and clamps its jaws on the spine."
The author mentions bears larger than tigers being "tackled" (how can you tackle a hibernating target?) and clearly, the bear in the hunting scenario is not hibernating. There is mentioned a bear carcass weighing 170 kg, killed by a tigress, but it had been partially eaten, therefore 170kg was not its living weight.Mariomassone (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it everybody here agrees, that siberian tigers can killl brown bears, but bears are not one of their typical prey species, like deer or wild boars. I have no detailed reference, if they kill only young bears, or if only big tiger males can kill female bears or whatever.... Until no one has really good references, we should keep it like it is now. Siberian tigers occasionally kill brown bears. --Altaileopard 14:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grizzly vs Tiger 

message: The Siberian tiger is no more. It is now officially known as the Amur Tiger since it doesn't live solely in Siberia, with only a small part of its current range being in siberia. The reason for it being called the Amur tiger is that it the River Amur runs through its territory. Shouldn't this page be moved to Amur Tiger and a redirect from Siberian Tiger and to mention this in the introduction. --chris_huh 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: In the section diet, says that wisents, crocodiles and pandas are part of the siberian tiger's diet. But as i say, wisents, pandas and crocodiles didn't exists in Siberia in nowdays. Tigers and wisents only coexisted in Caucasus and Northwest Iran in historical times, and pandas are exclusives of China. Crocodiles, as i say, don't inhabitts the cold seas and rivers of Eastern Siberia.
== Crocodiles and Tigers only co exist in 1 place and that is the Northern Chinese-Korean Peninsula and i personally have only seen 1 such fight between a tiger and crocodile where this huge tiger well over 600lbs killed a young crocodile and dragged it over 30m before eating it. The indian tiger ocassionally kills crocodiles but Siberian tigers and crocodiles rarely ever come into contact and crocodiles are not a Siberian Tiger's normal diet.
THere aren´t crocodiles in north china nor in Korea, so don´t lie,ok??
That´s childish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.236 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wisents, crocodiles and pandas

message: I read that while Tigers are rare in North and South Korea, there have been a number of citings in the DMZ, which is effectively the best protected National Park in the world. Just for people's interest. Sad mouse 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMZ 

message: This article seems to have been moved from Siberian Tiger to Amur Tiger recently, and with very little discussion. Is there some kind of evidence that "Amur Tiger" is the common name?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name was changed a few years ago from Siberian to Amur. Siberian Tiger still redirects here but now the article name is more official Chris_huhtalk 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed by whom? I would have thought Panthera tigris altaica was the official name.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IUCN and other organisations have started listing it as Amur Tiger, since Siberian Tiger was too misleading. Panthera tigris altaica is the official scientific name. Amur Tiger probably shouldnt be called the official name, sorry. But it is accepted by these major organisations as the main English name for it. The reason why is that it is found in the region of the Amur River, and not so much in Siberia. Chris_huhtalk 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The IUCN and other organizations..." What other organizations? You haven't provided a citation that the IUCN does so as official policy. Can you provide such a citation, and also one for each other such organization? Also, I'll point out that a Google search of the IUCN website reveals more hits for "Siberian tiger" than "Amur tiger." And "Siberian" is the overwhelmingly dominant common name used, and Wikipedia convention says to use common names. —Lowellian (reply) 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Siberia is a part of Russia, and northern Asia, right? The tiger was barely even found there, ever. But the region around the Amur River has always had these tigers. People will get to Amur Tiger from Siberian Tiger via a redirect but they will also realise that it is actually called the Amur tiger and not siberian. Surely wikipedia should have the most uptodate information, and not just call something what people called it many years ago for the sake of it. The subspecies is the Amur Tiger, not the Siberian, people are being taught that now as well. Chris_huhtalk 11:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a longer discussion, this really needs to move back to Siberian Tiger.  Wikipedia does not use official names, but the name something is most commonly known as (i.e. South Korea not Republic of Korea).  Without significant argument here, I'll move it to the proper title in a few days.   WilyD 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been changed because that is it's name. When someone goes to Siberian Tiger they will be redirected to this (Amur Tiger) which will help to tell people that the subspecies is now being referred to as Amur. It doesn't make any sense changing it back to Siberian tiger since it is correct now. Chris_huhtalk 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that doesn't jive with the Wikipedia naming convention or normal english usage as a descriptive language.  Adopting a name to change usage also contravenes WP:NPOV and is thus totally forbidden. WilyD 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It should be Siberian Tiger, not Amur Tiger, per Wikipedia conventions. —Lowellian (reply) 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the Common Names section. I have grown up calling them Siberian tigers. However, I recently read a NYT article which referred to Amur tigers. 30 seconds of research and, lo and behold, I learn Amur tiger is the preferred name now (well, except by some people on Wikipedia, it seems). Here is the link to the article I mentioned: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/science/earth/24tiger.html. If it is unavailable, here is the info: Schwirtz, Michael. "Data Show a Decline of Tigers in Russia." _New York Times_. 23 November 2009. Even if we still decide to keep the name as Siberian -- what is Wikipedia's policy on flip-flopping in the rest of the article? There is a caption in the article that currently refers to an "Amur" tiger.Mabsal (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title (Amur vs. Siberian) 

message: I love tigers!!
More needs to be done to save these tigers. Within the next 5 to 10 years, Siberian tigers will be extinct if they don't recieve more help. They are still being hunted and their habitat is shrinking. If nobody if going to try and help these tigers as best as possible, with the exception of zoos, all the wild tigers will be gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.129.201 (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saving tigers 

message: Why was this description changed "The male Amur Tiger can weigh as much as 318 kilograms (700 lb), although in past years, scientists believed that these cats could weigh up to 350 kilograms (800 lb), a supposition based largely on the estimates of hunters. On average, a tigress weighs about 160 kilograms (350 lb), and a male weighs about 225 kilograms (500 lb). At these sizes, the Amur Tiger is the largest natural creature of the cat family, though not as large as the liger, a panthera hybrid generally only found in captivity. The largest captive Amur tiger was 3.7 metres (12 ft) long and weighed over 423 kilograms (932 lb), compared to the largest captive African lion that weighed 366 kilograms (806 lb). Apart from its size, the Amur Tiger is differentiated from other tiger subspecies by its paler fur and dark brown (rather than black) stripes." to the new one this old description was perfectly fine and quite interesting. TeePee-20.7 08:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Characteristics 

message: Due to recent vandalisms, extern links, categories and interwikis have disappeared. This page needs a semi-protection.
I agree entirely.83.187.226.129 08:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page needs protection 

message: The source I've provided reports it from the WWE and hence it only said so much, I let the line before my edit stay as well just to give the impression of a progressive watch on this species on the part of Wikipedia :p
Bioskope 11:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further source on current numbers 

message: We can dicuss a lot about maximum and average size of siberian tigers, but I am sick of dilettantes. which do edits like this one. Dubious internet sources like this site are not comparable to scientific books like Alan Turner: Big Cats and their fossil relatives, which was deleted in this edit.  --Altaileopard 11:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: The Wikipedia article repeats old myths and exegerated claims about Amur Tigers and their weights that many modern scientists dispute. 
I am going to post modern sources by leading scientists with photo scan. 
First
* Living on the Edge: Tigers and the Northern Limit of Their Range
1. First source is from Dale Miquelle's article "Living on the Edge: Tigers and the Northern Limit of Their Range" which can be found in the book Ultimate Guide: Tigers. And according to him the weights of OVER 50 (which is a very large number for tigers) Amur was similar to what has been found with Bengal Tigers. Click on the link above to verify 
Second
* How big are Siberian Tigers?
According to Dale Miquelle, the average weights of the male Amur tigers in the project's study was less than 500 pounds and close to 400 pounds. These weights are a bit smaller than what has been found with the larger Bengal tigers, and very similar in size to African lions. Click on the link above to verify. 
Third 
*Tigers in the Snow 
This is from the book Tigers in the Snow, and according to Igor Nikolaev, which Dale Miquelle (who is also one of the world's leading experts) claimed "knows more about Amur Tigers than anyone alive" states, that he knows of no wild Amur tiger that has exceeded 650 pounds. The book which is backed by the world's leading experts on the Amur tiger claims that the Amur tiger is probably the lighter cat when compared to Nepal tigers. This is significant because the people saying this are some of the world's leading experts on Amur tigers.
Another leading tiger scientist, K. Ullas Karnath has written this in book "The Way of the Tiger" that tigers Siberia are about the same size of tigers from Nepal and Nagarahole.
Fourth 
Amur Tiger, by David Prynn 
This is from the book Amur Tiger, by David Prynn, and accoroding to it, the largest male Amur Tiger varifiable by the Siberian Tiger project since 1992 (in which as we already know over 50 animals were weighed ) was only 215kg, which is about average for a male Nepal or North Indian Tiger as the book also states. If the Siberian tiger did average 225kg or more as some claim, the largest in this study should not have been just 215kg. This data suggests, that Amur tigers do not grow as large as Bengal tigers. In 12 years, and over 50 animals, the largest tiger they could find was only 215kg. So its rather obviously that the average Amur tiger today is not 225kg. 
Fifth 
Last of the one horn Rhinoceros 
This is from the book Last of the one horn Rhinoceros, and on this book it states weights of the two largest tigers captured Nepal which were both estimated to weight 600 pounds. It also states, that the largest tigers from Russia were not as big as these two giants from Nepal, and that tigers from Chitiwan are bigger than the ones from Siberia. So the largest Siberian captured in recent years was  likely less than 600 pounds.
Sixth 
list tiger mortality in Russia from 1970-1994 
This is a list tiger mortality in Russia from 1970-1994, and while some were not in the best of shape, some were and quoted as fat (on fat index). Nevertheless, the largest male was only 194kg, which is well below what some people tend to think.
Compiling all of the averages, from modern sources, it seems that Siberian Tigers are smaller than Nepal and Nagarahole tigers. In fact the weights from these scientists is "very similar" African lions. Modern cats are not the giants they are made up to be and average is in the 400s range. I am not disputing the fact that Siberian tigers can weigh 600 pounds, but the average for modern cats is not 225kg.
Some of tigers 
* Largest individual tiger in Siberian Tiger in the Siberian Tiger project's study as of 2004 was 215kg 
* Also in this book is a tiger which weighed 200kg 440lb 
*the 10-year old well fed male mentioned in this book was 175kg 385lb. 
*another healthy adult male 204kg 450lb
* Another male mentioned on the book Tigers the Ultimate Guide which weighed 205kg. Dale described him as a powerful specimen. 
* There is the tiger named Dale (named after the scientist) and he was a male in good shape, yet he only weighed 182kg. I'll see if I can find more on him. 
Considering al these modern data, you get an average of about 195kg which is slightly smaller than Bengal tigers, though still a bit larger than your typical lion. Nevertheless, its far below 225kg (495 lb) or 660 lb average claimed by Wikipedia
I put all this info and sources here so if anyone wants, they can verify and fix instead of regurgitating old exegerated myths. 
At least the alternative views that I posted should be mentioned in the article, but it's not. The article only reflects old claims found widely in popular literature. The article says nothing about modern views or the dispute by some modern researchers. Cherck all the sources listed above  24.166.188.29 06:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Myths about Amur Tigers in Wikipedia

message: Mazak's used a circus Tiger from the Bouglione Menagerie - this would explain why his weights are not accepted by Nikolaev - who would be fully aware of Mazak's studies conducted years earlier. At present the 306 kg Tiger max provided by Mazak is highly questionable and rejected by Nikolaev (2000). 24.166.188.29 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mazak's 306 kg tiger

message: A study of the carcasses of wild tigers from the Russian Far East, which had died of various causes, showed the heaviest to be a well fed male, about 4 years old, that weighed 193 kg. Location, physical status, size and circumstances of deaths of Amur tiger males in the Russian Far East, 1970-1994. But within this study, it is striking that almost all of of these tigers where killed after attacking domestic animals (a behaviour seldom seen in siberian tigers) and where evidently ill (Parotitis, injured paws, old bullet wounds). So most of them probably starved and where malnourished. Only two of them with given age where not obviously impaired and did not attack domestic livestock. They weighed 175kg and 170kg respectively. The third, which was probably not affected was 193 kg (pathology of paw bone) and was killed by another tiger. Hence the data of these study can not claim to be universal for weight of healthy, adult siberian tigers. Altaileopard
: But the article lists Mazak's circus tiger (306 kg) as upper limit. That's not a normal wild tiger either. Mazak is used by many other sources to calculate 230 kg as average and even Wikipedia uses that average. If average is 230 kg, don't you think it's weird that the largest wild tiger that Siberian Tiger Project found (after weighing 50+ wild tigers) was 215 kg? 24.166.188.29 08:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn´t matter, what I think. There is only one thing that counts in wikipedia: sources! original research is inadmissible not baseless.--Altaileopard 15:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed from article (original research) 

message: The article says 
"The Hengdaohezi Feline Breeding Centre in the northern Heilongjiang province of China plans to release 620 Siberian tigers in 2007, after its numbers grew from eight to 750."
Even though the source is cited (BBC), I contacted Endi ZHANG, member, Scientific Committee of Endangered Species of China since 1999. And his reply was this: "Hi, I have called a couple of people, and no body thinks this is true. Where in wild to put these tigers? I guess this might due to the mis-translation from "hope to release" to "plan to release'."
This claim that China is planning to release 600 tigers is certainly dubious. 24.166.188.29 07:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Releasing Tigers in the Wild

message: I erased the following sentence and void reference to undefined refname "TIS", mostly because it was causing a glaring red warning in the References list, but also because it made no sense in context: 
:
 At least one authority suspects that this is the difference between real weights and hunter's estimates.
Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of removing the reference, it would be better to check the page history to find what that reference originally referred to and then restore the reference. —Lowellian (reply) 13:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Void reference

message: Quoting the article: "It is considered to be the largest of the six tiger subspecies and the largest taxon cat in the world."
I think this is meant to say "cat taxon" but I'm not certain so I'm not changing it. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing.-------71.190.94.29 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed that. "taxon cat" is vague: it could mean the family [Feliade]], the subfamily Felinae (Feline), the genus Felis, or the specie Felis catus (domestic cat). Tigers only belong to Feliade, not the others. I replaced it with family Feliade.AtikuX (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxon cat ? 

message: Consider the following passage:
In an incident at the San Francisco Zoo on 25 December 2007, a Siberian tiger named Tatiana escaped and killed one visitor, injuring two others. The animal was shot dead by the police. Investigators believe the three visitors, whose blood tests showed they had consumed illegal drugs and sufficient alcohol to be above the legal driving limit, had climbed onto the rail by the animal's enclosure and provoked it with taunts and projectiles.[24] Whether the tiger was provoked with projectiles is very much in dispute. Recent reports say police did not find any evidence that the tiger had been provoked by the use of projectiles.[25]
This little passage causes some problems here.
First, it's included in a section about attacks on humans by Siberian tigers in the wild. So it's misleading because it will lead readers to assume that this incident tells us something about the man-eating tendencies of Siberian tigers.
Second, there is the question of relevance. That a Siberian tiger apparently climbed up a wall (which was 12.5 feet high, according to other references) and attacked a human being is probably relevant. But what is the relevance, to an encyclopedic entry on the Siberian tiger, of drug or alcohol allegations directed towards human beings, or exactly how they they taunted the tiger? In what way does this provide the reader with any information about Siberian tigers? I am sure each human attacked by any animal (tiger, lion, elephant, snake, etc.) has his own unique story, and that story will rarely give us any insight into the animal itself. The only useful point I see in this incident is that a captive Siberion tiger, when provoked, could scale up a 12.5-foot wall and attack human beings. This tells us only how far up the animal can climb, and that's about it.
So I propose that we replace this passage with something like this:
In one incident a captive (not wild) Siberian tiger, when provoked by humans, scaled a 12.5-foot wall and attacked the provokers.
Rahul (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting points. I don't see the problem in its placement, as the section is labeled Attacks on humans, which seems pretty general. However, I agree that the drug and alcohol allegations are pretty useless in this article. Any specifics about the case can easily be found in the Wikipedia article about the case, or the references provided. I made the description more concise. Take a look, hopefully the rewording is a bit better... WDavis1911 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much nicer. The height of the wall deserves mention, as many people (including those planning to provoke a tiger...:-) will want to know how high it could climb up. The tiger's name ("Tatiana") seems to me to have no encyclopedic value.  Rahul (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In a tiger attack on a human, the human's personal story is not relevant 

message: When, exactly, did tiger become a proper noun? I suggest a move to Siberian tiger (which is now one of the stupidest & most needless redirects I've seen). TREKphiler hit me ♠  10:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Excuse me, but someone claimed that the Siberian Tiger was bigger than the Bengal Tiger, but the Bengal Tiger weighs more, is longer, and is taller, although its coat is not as thick.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmart5 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: Here are scans of the source. Resolve your little disputes here;
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4475/tigervbear.jpg
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/636/tigervbear2.jpg
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6867/tigervbear3.jpg
Mariomassone (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger vs bear again 

message: From; http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6867/tigervbear3.jpg
*Adult tigress
*Tiger (age, sex unknown)
*"Young tiger"
From; http://tigers.ru/articles/tab_eng.html#tab1
*Male tiger of unkown age or health
I think this warrants no specification of sex/age.Mariomassone (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. The first link does not even state that the middle tiger was killed by the bear, only that it was "knocked down" and was not victorious in their "battle." More importantly, there's no indication of age or sex at all, so that reference provides no examples of adult males. The second one is closer, but again doesn't provide much in the way of specifics. The classifications on that page are fairly wide so it's unclear whether that's an adult or subadult male, just that it is not a "cub". In any case, I would submit that more than one example would be needed to make a plural statement about "tigers," even assuming that that example is a valid one, which is somewhat dubiious for the reasons stated. 149.79.35.227 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the russian version it's apparently written "взрослых тигров-самцов" ("male adult tigers"), no way subadults. http://tigers.ru/articles/table1.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.155.245 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age/Sex of tigers killed by bears 

message: There is a separate article on the White Amur Tiger that is an orphan and a stub. I think the page should be merged with this one. If anybody agrees, I'd like to learn about the necessary wiki-actions that need to take place in order to merge articles. Kpstewart (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. I checked it out, and see that its only reference is a dead link. It should be deleted.Mariomassone (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it mentioned that the white Siberian tigers at the zoo are mated with Bengals, then marketed as Siberian Tigers? I didn't see any mention of the white Siberian mixed tigers. 65.51.87.2 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: White Amur Tiger

message: I made a little change in the paragraph of the skull sizes, because there were no references about the greatest length of the Amur tiger skull. Plus, I correct some references that were incorrect and ad some links to the original works. Cheers.--AmbaDarla (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull sizes and references 

message: This is my first contribution to the world of Wikipedia so please bear with me, and in light of much of what I have read on the Wiki-Tiger discussion page alone: Please be polite to me, assume my good faith, avoid attacking me personally, and be welcoming.
I am concerned with this general article on tigers and with the articles on the Siberian/Amur tiger (P. t. altaica) and Caspian Tiger (P. t. virgata). Quoting a source that I found cited on the Wiki-Tiger page (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004125), recent research involving mitochondrial molecular genetics seems to be uncovering possible historic errors made in taxonomic subspecies definitions:
:quote - In the era before molecular taxonomy tiger subspecies definitions were based on classical criteria: geographical origin, gross size and pelage variation (hair length, color, stripe number and patterning) (Figure 1). Subspecies so described were often spurious as they were sometimes based on a single, possibly aberrant, individual, or from the unknowing sampling of clinal variation. Such methods led to a lack of consensus, repeated taxonomic revision, and debate. Though debate continues, eight tiger subspecies (three of which are extinct) are widely recognized based on these criteria. However the phylogeny of the five extant recognized tiger taxa (P. t. tigris, P. t. altaica, P. t. amoyensis, P. t. sumatrae, P. t. corbetti) was revisited recently using mitochondrial molecular genetics by Luo et al. who affirmed the validity of subspecies ranking for these groups. Additionally, these authors identified an equivalent sub-specific taxon unique to the Malay peninsula south of the Isthmus of Kra, formerly classified within P. t. corbetti but now designated as the Malay tiger, P. t. jacksoni.
The article goes on to describe how these new research results seem to indicate that that the Siberian subspecies is genetically so close to the Caspian subspecies as for them to be considered one and the same:
:quote - The Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata) flourished in Central Asian riverine forest systems in a range disjunct from that of other tigers, but was driven to extinction in 1970 prior to a modern molecular evaluation. For over a century naturalists puzzled over the taxonomic validity, placement, and biogeographic origin of this enigmatic animal. Using ancient-DNA (aDNA) methodology, we generated composite mtDNA haplotypes from twenty wild Caspian tigers from throughout their historic range sampled from museum collections. We found that Caspian tigers carry a major mtDNA haplotype differing by only a single nucleotide from the monomorphic haplotype found across all contemporary Amur tigers (P. t. altaica). Phylogeographic analysis with extant tiger subspecies suggests that less than 10,000 years ago the Caspian/Amur tiger ancestor colonized Central Asia via the Gansu Corridor (Silk Road) from eastern China then subsequently traversed Siberia eastward to establish the Amur tiger in the Russian Far East. The conservation implications of these findings are far reaching, as the observed genetic depletion characteristic of modern Amur tigers likely reflects these founder migrations and therefore predates human influence. Also, due to their evolutionary propinquity, living Amur tigers offer an appropriate genetic source should reintroductions to the former range of the Caspian tiger be implemented.
The article concludes that in light of this new information there was a historical mistake in designating a new subspecies for the extant population found in far eastern Russia; in fact there never was a Siberian tiger subspecies.
:quote - Interruption of potential historical gene flow across the ancestral Eurasian distribution of P. t. altaica+P. t. virgata may have been too recent (<200 years) to accumulate sub-species level genetic differentiation and a single mtDNA transition may not sufficiently establish the differentiation required to assign each population to separate taxonomic categories. Depending on further study of nuclear genes and morphology, and in view of previous equivocal or conflicting morphological assessments, Caspian and Amur tigers (P. t. virgata, Illiger,1815 and P. t. altaica, Temminck, 1844, respectively) might be considered as synonymous under the prior P. t. virgata trinomial as prescribed by the rules of the ICZN, in which case pronouncing the Caspian tiger extinct may have been premature.
I would be most certainly in favor of keeping the Siberian Tiger subspecies page as many people will be looking to find a "Siberian tiger" page for years to come, but facts are facts; the Caspian tiger is still alive in far eastern Russia and the Siberian tiger subspecies never existed. I rely on Wikipedia daily for information, and I expect it to be accurate. But I have to say that certainly somebody with more Wiki experience than me has to undertake this project, and based on what I have read on the Wiki-Tiger discussion page it needs to be someone with Wiki-clout.
In postscript: I apologize for the excessive long entry, and my probable inability to format my entry properly (Altalaya (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this theme is very controversial, and even the merge of the articles was too early for me. We most be very careful in this studies and be prepare for the scientific consensus. I will prefer to maintain the name “Siberian tiger” for the moment, but until the scientific community don’t make a general acceptation, like the one of the Malayan tiger, it will be better to not make more changes in the article. --AmbaDarla (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments are welcome on impending changes to the Caspian, Siberian, and Tiger pages. Please direct comments to the Tiger discussion page (Altalaya (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly do not see what the problem is. Is it just the fact that the article is entitled "Siberian tiger"? The fact remains that this subspecies is now completely confined to the Amur region of Siberia, therefore, its name is valid, despite its historically once wider distribution.Mariomassone (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct subspecies name Siberian tiger vs. Caspian tiger 

message: First of all, please note that there is only one bit of cited material being removed in my edits. The Miquelle piece remains in a different place and in another instance one bit of cited material is being replaced with another. Re the cited source that is being deleted, i.e., the passage about brown bears being "immune" from summer predation, the section in the source material containing this statement cites sources published in 1948 and 1965. There is additional information in the form of studies since that time (covered in other cites in this section) that has proven that that is not the case. Therefore that sourced material is not helpful or accurate based on the current level of scientific knowledge. The citation regarding "12 instances of bear predation on tigers" is covered by the similarly cited statement:  "there are also records of brown bears killing tigers, either in disputes over prey or in self defense." The latter statement is more helpful because it is misleading to limit the bear predation to "12 instances," that number refers to only to a specific study rather than long term observation, and moreover, is somewhat misleading in any case because it includes instances of tiger cub predation although this is not clarified in the sentence. Regardless, the general statement makes more sense and fits the tone of the section better than a specific number selected from a specific study, which would be misleading in a variety of ways.  71.248.14.64 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for edits 

message: What is the current estimated population of Siberian tigers in the wild?  I can't find it in the article. 24.11.90.46 (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current population estimate 

message: 72.1.195.4 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caspian tigers were not Siberian tigers!!! The Caspian tiger was a separate subspecies. 

message: Without wading into the argument over the correct name of this animal, I will point out that most or all of the article titles used are incorrect, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (see particularly WP:NAME#Lowercase). The article should be "Siberian tiger" (only the first letter capitalised), or if you prefer, "Amur tiger." Since the page is currently at "Siberian Tiger" (and seems to have been there for quite a while), I am requesting the move to "Siberian tiger" and leaving "Siberian Tiger" as a redirect. cmadler (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title, per [[WP:NAME#Lowercase]] 

message: It is difficult to sift through all of the gibberish to determine the weight of a male tiger.  You guys put the one for the females clearly.  19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight Averages for Males?