Talk:Tiger/Archive 1

message: The image entitled "RoyalBengalTiger" in the subspecies section appears to be a sumatran tiger, not a bengal tiger. It has a dark reddish coat with thick stripes, a very large ruff of fur around a very rounded face, and angled, almond shaped eyes which are particularly characteristic of sumatrans. In addition to this the eyes are relatively large, which suggests proportionately smaller body size.
If you want to check my claim, search "bengal tiger" and "sumatran tiger" in google images. The majority of those images are correctly labelled.
Perhaps this image should be replaced with the queued image "Tiger_Bandavgarh". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.64.63 (talk • contribs) 
You're correct.  Well-spotted.  The photographer (on flickr.com) appears to be under the incorrect notion that the Toronto Zoo displays Siberian Tigers and Bengal Tigers (and apparently presumed this non-Siberian was a Bengal).  A quick look at their website (and a google image search) reveals that they do not have Bengal Tigers and they do have Sumatran Tigers. - Slow Graffiti 20:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Label

message: It reads that they are in "descending order of wild population," but instead they seem to be in an arbitrary order.  - 24.107.102.17
I've fixed this (based on the numbers presented in the article). - Slow Graffiti 05:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Subspecies section

message: This page was previewed by Steve Jobs during his WWDC 2005 keynote address. You can watch the keynote here. The relevant part is at 19:17. —Cantus…☎ 12:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Quite how the Mac OS X v10.4 tiger logo got onto this page I have no idea.  I replaced it with the Siberian tiger image. Palefire 02:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
:The image Tiger.jpg came from commons.wikipedia.org. Wikipedia automatically takes the image from commons if no image exists on en.wikipedia.org. Now someone uploaded the image Tiger.jpg (MaxOS X logo) to en.wikipedia.org and this means that the software now takes the image from en instead of the one from commons. -- mkrohn 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: The Wikipedia article lists three extinct subspecies of tiger: Caspian, Balinese, and Javanese. However I believe there is a fourth subspecies. It is a dwarf species that inhabited Japan during the ice ages. If only I could find the name of the subspecies...
:---There were no doubt many subspecies which became extinct before being recognised by scientists.           Therefore I've renamed it to 'Recently extinct subspecies'. I would also like to bring it to peoples attention that a new subspecies of tiger has been discovered, the 'Malayan tiger' (previously thought to be the same as the Indochinese tiger). When I find more time I might research a little more and add this  in. Some links-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4075779.stm
http://www.savethetigerfund.org/news/2004/November/04_11_4w2.htm
And the distribution-
http://www.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/News/Six_Living_Tiger_Subspecies_distribution_map3.pdf
--Tommyknocker 21:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A prehistoric subspecies of tiger is the Trinil tiger Panthera tigris trinilensis, which was the first tiger species to occur on Java. The prehistoric Chinese tiger subspecies Panthera tigris palaeosinensis also occurred in Japan during the time it was connected with the mainland. After the disappearance of the land bridges it is possible that they became dwarfed. I don't know much on this dwarfed tiger and as far as I know it has not been named scientifically, but I can be wrong. Peter Maas 14:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another extinct subspecies? 

message: In November 2004 a new Tiger subspecies, The Malayan Tiger (Panthera tigris jacksoni), was described.
Full taxinomic status is currently debated.
http://www.savethetigerfund.org/news/2004/November/04_11_4w2.htm Melly42 16:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Tiger subspecies described 

message: I find it digusting to see how many tiger subspecies are already extinct and how many are on the brink of extinction, such as the south china tigers! People should take responsibility and abide the international laws against poaching and illegal trade!
I agree, but this isn't the place to talk about it.
Cameron Nedland 05:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: I have a thought, and it is twofold:
The article states that a Tiger's coat ranges from yellow to red, but in all my years of lookin'-at-pictures I've never seen a tiger that wasn't orange.. orange orange. By no stretch of the imagination or fault of the eye is any tiger ever yellow... I believe the biological term for the tiger's pigment is in fact the "red" feline coat pigment...
and then the question comes up,
howcome tigers are always yellow in Chinese art? Were they out of red paint to mix with?
The Caspian tiger was said to be yellow with black stripes.
Cameron Nedland 05:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim of a tiger's coat ranging from 'yellow to red' does not mean that entire coats of specimen may be completely yellow, or completely red.  It means that certain areas of the coat can lighter (yellow) and some can be dark enough to be called red. Slow Graffiti 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color? 

message: not specifically. We did invade their territory and it's not their fault that they don't distinguish us from an antelope. Its also not their fault that we just so happen to be one of the slowest and easiest animals to catch. To them, we are just another thing to become their dinner.
--BeccaRose 02:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as we sympathise with the tiger, it is a maneater given the right circumstances. And they do single out humans in some of these areas. But that is also one of the main reasons why the Sundarbans are still intact. The tigers there are so ferocious that anyone venturing there would have a deathwish, the locals included. The locals even worship the tiger as god despite the mauling it has given them and the authorities. Idleguy 05:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maneaters??? 

message: I note that we only have one picture of a tiger in the wild, and lots of them in zoos. The former is in the queue. How much better does a zoo pic have to be (in terms of focus, clarity, etc) than a wild pic in order for it to be preferred? Pcb21 Pete 14:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to try to dig up some non-zoo, in-focus pictures someone could try flickr, which has a good number of photos under licenses we can use  , but they would be kinda buried.  The other good resource is http://images.fws.gov, although I think I went through all their big cat ones at some point.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. As it happens I just took some pictures of tigers in the wild myself (lucky enough to score a trip to Ranthambore NP in India). I could upload these, but to be honest they are not much better than the ones already in the article except for the fact they wild instead of zoo. But given that from a static article POV, the two look the same, is there any advantage to in the wild photographs? Pcb21 Pete 17:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my own wild photos are bad night shots and even during the day would be indistinguishable from a nice zoo-habitat (I think I was at the same park, near Jaipur right?).  Unfortunately it's hard to get pictures of tigers in the wild hunting or doing anything else they don't do when hanging around in a zoo.  If you can't tell it's a zoo setting, I'd go with the better photograph irrespective of actual setting.  The only concern I'd have is if every picture in the article was quite obviously a zoo snapshot, which we don't seem to be in danger of.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The section on tiger rivals seems to be rather unencyclopaedic. Would prefer a section on Tiger ecology with information on range, food and behavior instead of this. Shyamal 10:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entries on Tigers vs. Lion, Tiger vs. Elephant etcetera seem to be making their reappearance. The ecology section was added to give information about how they live/compete/reproduce within their normal ecosystem. Information about stray conflicts in captivity with different species and their outcomes does not make for encyclopaedic material even if citations are available. Shyamal 09:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If the above is the reason for frequent edit conflicts, the solution would be to remove the superlatives for the tiger, which is more easily done than arranging fights with various animals ! Shyamal 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: Isn't this contradictory?:
::There are believed to be between 440 and 590 wild South China Tigers remaining in the world. It seems likely that the last known wild South Chinese tiger was shot and killed in 1994, and no live tigers have been seen in their natural habitat for the last 20 years.
Taken straight from the article. -- Tomhab 15:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My previous statement here was erroneous - I overlooked the word wild in "440 and 590 wild South China tigers."  I originally suspected this figure was for the number of captive specimens, but that figure is stated later in the same paragraph at 59.  I've removed the statement about 440-590 pending a source for the figure.  I'll look into this myself this week.  - Slow Graffiti 05:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South chinese tiger 

message: here is a link to a website containing information on sundarbans tigers. It has weekly updates from a research team who are monitoring a radio collared tiger-
www.sundarbanstigerproject.info
I think it would be a relevent link for both this "Sundarbans" page and any on tigers
All the best
Adam Barlow
barl0048@umn.edu  202.56.4.109 10:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your input is appreciated...however, you are not supposed to delete the rest of the discussion page to add your own.  Simply start a new section on the bottom of the page.  I have replaced the rest of the discussion page, and placed your point as it should've been done. - Slow Graffiti 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger Link 

message: A statement was recently added to the Subspecies section in front of the Bengal Tiger paragraph:  "The royal bengal tiger was often recieved as a gift for young Indian Princes on their 15th birthday. The Killing of the tiger on their 18th birthday signaled that the boy had now become a man"
It was both out of place within the article, and out of place as part of the article itself.  After some revision, I think such a comment would be better placed within the Bengal Tiger article instead of this general Tiger article. - Slow Graffiti 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bengal Tiger Comment 

message: "In the Sundarbans, this subspecies is a documented man-eater irresepective of condition."
Such a comment needs a citation, and belongs on the Bengal Tiger page as it is quite specific to that subspecies.  The subspecies descriptions are for general information - physical characteristics and population/conservation status. - Slow Graffiti 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent addition to Bengal Tiger section

message: The Article looks very short. A lot of information is missing from the article, and I mean a lot. Can't anyone find more information on Tigers? because I know there is a lot of info on tigers. Please expnad this article!!!   Crna Gora (Talk/Contribs/Edit Count) 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article 

message: Neither this page nor the Malayan tiger page are particularly clear on what the Malayan tiger was before it was classified as a seperate subspecies. Logically, I would assume it was considered part of the Indochinese subspecies but someone more in the know should add the info Nil Einne 17:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malayan tiger 

message: AFAIK, the use of tiger parts is predominantly from Chinese traditional medicine. It is not to my knowledge used in ayurvedic medicine (Hindu) or Malay traditional medicine (e.g. by bomohs). Indeed, the intro simply speaks of Chinese traditional medicine. If it's predominantly or exclusively used in Chinese traditional medicine rather then Asian traditional medicine, we need to make this clear. There is mention of Taiwanese use but I would assume this is Taiwanese Chinese use rather the aboriginal/indigenous Taiwanese use. Also the many people from Asia seems a bit unfair especially since it's unsourced. I doubt for example that people in Iran or other Middle Eastern Asian countries think so. Also, if I'm correct, I suspect many people in South Asia and South East Asia think so. Indeed, I'm quite skeptical how many people in Korea, Japan and Mongolia think so. Even in China, I would say it's not particularly clear how many people actually believe in the usefulness of tiger parts per se. Perhaps they believe in traditional medicine and if told by a traditional healer that these tiger parts are useful they will believe so but this is not exactly the same thing as believing in the medicinal uses of tiger parts pe se. N.B. Not that this matters but I'm half-Chinese. Nil Einne 18:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese or Asian medicine 

message: How many times are we going back and forth between removing the image of 'Tigress killing crocodile' and replacing it with "Tigers prefer large prey..." paragraph and vice versa!? Sahands aug 30, 06
BJK1903 and John9834 are possibly the same person. And he/she has called on user Dora Nichov to take part in the revert war. Though I have pointed out that the article doesnt doesnt say crocodiles and bears are tiger prey, they persist with their silly reverts saying that the article says they are prey. Their behavior can be explained by the nature and content of John9834's previous edits related to crocodiles. It is time they are reported. They seem to edit the discussion page only to scream out loud but not consider any reason.
User:Sohola
We're not screaming, OK? THIS IS SCREAMING/SHOUTING. Dora Nichov 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!

message: The "tiger killing crocodile" image is itself no proof that tigers kill crocs larger than themselves. A tiger would of course kill and eat a smaller croc that it could overpower, and it would of course scavenge a a dead croc of any size, but just the same it is easy to imagine a crocodile snatching a tiger cub. So what?
Both creatures recognize each other as mutually dangerous, and both would likely back down if they perceive themselves as equals or near-equals. Most likely a croc goes back into nearby water and the tiger goes away from the water -- much as humans and dogs ordinarily back down from each other should they enter a threatening situation.
Crocodiles are tough-skinned, and they seem wholly-unsuited as victims of the lethal neckbite that all cats characteristically use against prey of significant size. The croc's neck is just too big for this tigress to kill it. The photo shows the tigress, much smaller than the croc, attacking behind the neck, which is not how one would expect a tiger to attack a large prey item.
All bets are off if a croc threatens a tigress' cubs, of course.
I checked a link on the page for Tiger and found found the photo  It won a photography prize, but it is titled: Tigress on crocodile. No mention is made of the tigress killing the crocodile. It would seem that the photographer had no cause to believe that either the tigress had killed or was about to kill the crocodile. I could even as easily imagine this tiger riding the croc in some horseplay, the croc coming out of the situation none the worse for wear. But that's all speculation. "Tigress on crocodile" does not imply "tigress killing crocodile". This photo no more proves that a tiger kills crocs larger than itself any more than does a photo of a man upon a horse show that humans eat horses.
--Paul from Michigan 21:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. User:Sohola
I am now satisfied that, although the incident is a freakish situation (a drought had practically dried out a riverbed that a croc needed more than did the tiger), the text relating the incident clearly stated that the tigress killed the croc, although she did not eat the croc. The croc may have been weakened badly, and without its usual defense (going into the water) the croc was easy to kill. 
Severe droughts happen, and in such cases a croc loses its advantage to any giant predators (tigers, lions, or possibly bears) that it might fend off or escape easily in normal times. If it is weakened by hunger or overheating, even the crocodile is vulnerable. In normal times, when the water gives cover or refuge to the croc, the tigress either backs off or gets killed.  --Paul from Michigan 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recaption or remove! 

message: I removed the following line from the introduction:
:The tiger's beautiful blend of grace and ferocity led the legendary author and conservationist, Jim Corbett to remark - "The Tiger is a large hearted gentleman with boundless courage...".
This seems rather POV to me, but within a few hours Thegoodson placed it back without explanation. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, so please why this is vital to the introduction. RexNL 11:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would have read the edit summaries and my comments above, you would know that I didn't remove it without explanation. Secondly, I disagree that the introduction is the right place of this quote. A Wikipedia article should consist of reliable, undisputed facts; the introduction in particular. If you add a quote like this, you basically tell the reader that tigers are beautiful. Although there are certainly many people who love and respect the tiger, this is still POV. This is also the reason why I removed the claim that tigers are the "most powerful" cats, which seems to be supported by a children's website only. No authorative work would claim that tigers are the most powerful, simply because power can be measured in a million ways and there's no objective way so tell which animal is the most powerful. RexNL 20:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: It is the national animal of the unrecognized country tamil eelam and the mascot of the tamil tigers.
I think that needs to be mentioned,any suggestions?
Donnyt 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tamil tigers 

message: i think you have to remove or probably abridge the section "Traditional Asian medicine".
Cure cancer using tiger tail may sound wrong but there is vast majority of people willing to get their hands on this stuff especially the desperate. I didnt know that tiger tails could "cure" skin cancer or stop convulsions but only after reading this.
Any thoughts about this?
,,,,
The people who use tiger parts in 'traditional medicine' would probably be unable to tell a tiger part from a part of a lion (not so obviously threatened) or perhaps even a dog (an animal very much on the menu in southeastern and eastern Asia), and an animal that has surprisingly much in common with a tiger in behavior and physique. I think that there must be the idea that the tiger has some magical properties because it is a tiger, and that by eating a part of a tiger, a person acquires some of the characteristics of the deceased tiger.
This sort of 'traditional medicine' is poorly suited to double-blind tests that could prove or disprove the contention that a dead tiger has some curative powers. I suspect that part of the charm of such lore is that by eating parts of a dead tiger that humans have killed, a person shows mastery over one of the most formidable creatures still alive. 
Maybe the 'traditional medicine' lore fits the POV dispute and belongs on the discussion page instead of the main page. --Paul from Michigan 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Traditional Asian medicine 

message: We should make a distinction between average weight and rare, extreme weights. On average tigers don't weigh up to 320kg. Of course there are tiger of that weight, especially Siberian tigers, but these are rare. For Bengal tigers for example only one specimen weighed more than 320kg. 318kg and 310kg specimens are second or third in ranking. These are record instances even for the second largest of the subspecies. Even Siberians weight 225 kg on average. This generalization should be about the average weight of the tiger and we should also consider smaller subspecies. As the paragraph says, differences occur for different subspecies.
My suggestion is we should take an average for males and females of each subspecies. (This already exists in the article) and then take the averages of those average weights to determine the average weight for Panthera tigris.
  Male        Female
Siberian              225                160
Bengal                220                140
Sumatran              120                 90
Indochinese           180                115   
South China           150                110  
Malayan                -                  -
Average               179                123
Increase average as Bengals make up the most of the population
Final 180-200    120-140
I think this is very logical. We don't even give the exact average; we increase it by about 20kg. We should also note that there are instances of tiger more than 300kg. We should use terms like average weight, normal maximum weight, and record weights. 85.96.215.62 08:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger Weight 

message: Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is it true there were once tigers in Africa? I vaguely recall reading something to that effect when I was young.
yep, sadly humans drove those to extinction (though some of it was due to other natural causes).
Thought so. Thanks. :D
:Really? Which wild tiger species or subspecies lived in Africa than? So far as I know there have never been tigers in Africa. However there is evidence from fossils that the sabre-tooth species was found in many parts of the continent until about a million years ago. But was that a real tiger? Peter Maas 11:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A qoute from : "Tigers in Africa dwells largely in the domain of the latter; Carmel Schrire announces at the book's outset, on the authority of the fossil record, that there are not now nor have there ever been any "real" tigers in Africa (3). This acknowledged, Schrire's contribution to a history of animals and empire is not a trivial one; Tigers in Africa directs the reader toward the importance of the idea of the tiger in the construction of the Cape Colony's past. To this end, Shrire demonstrates how the myth of the tiger in Africa was a colonial fiction and in doing so operationalizes the tiger (in sometimes uncomfortable ways) as the governing metaphor in her discussion of the Cape Colony's history." Source: Warren, James H. "Tigers in Africa: Stalking the Past at the Cape of Good Hope (review)" Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History - Volume 4, Number 3, Winter 2003, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Peter Maas 11:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Africa 

message: I can't understand why you keep insisting on putting wrong information in the text. It's obvious from above that it is false. 85.97.11.49 17:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I see there has been a very long debate going on here. I think both sides should come together and try to find a solution to this. There is no reason to hassle i think. According to the titles created by many people above, in my last edit I underlined three points of controversy; weight, bears, crocodiles. I personally requested a change in the weight section but nobody replied my message. 85.97.15.135 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of talking about many different things, however I must insist that ligers be at least mentioned.  Yes, tigers are the largest cat species in the wild, but they are not the largest cat.  This is well documented, and deserves mention to help the reader understand the difference because it is relevant to tigers, especially when you claim they are the largest. Simply leaving it at that can be misleading to the reader.  In any case, the words "most powerful" are subjective, and should be left out in an encyclopedia.  Size can be measured, power can't.  Inforazer 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution 

message: The above dispute has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal.  I think it's gone on long enough without a resolution.  Thanks in advance for cooperating.--Caliga10 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed in that it's definitely been amusing.  But I'm getting tired of seeing Tiger and its talk page at the top of my watchlist at all times. :)--Caliga10 16:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Two reasons.  1.  I'm not informed enough about this particular issue to feel qualified to weign in, and 2.  even if I felt that I was, I really don't want to see this problem get worse, which is quite likely if more people join the debate unless it is moderated.--Caliga10 16:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious, if you know nothing about tigers, why is it on your watchlist? 
64.236.245.243 17:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say I know nothing about tigers?  I said I'm not informed enough about this particular issue, meaning the tigers vs. crocodiles debate.--Caliga10 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just about crocodiles vs tigers Inforazer 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed to me like this was the immediate argument, but yes I see that there have been other disputed items, too.  The subject of the debate is not what's relevant here and not what prompted the mediation request; what prompted the request was the continual edits/reverts and vitriol on the talk page.--Caliga10 17:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you're absolutely correct.  However, as I stated I don't think I'm informed enough to make a worthwhile contribution to this particular issue.  Effective mediation will hopefully permit a consensus to be built.  Also, may I suggest that you create a Wikipedia user account?  It will be alot easier for mediators to work with you if you have a personal account rather than posting anonymously.--Caliga10 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal Mediation

message: Please remove :Category:Animals that prey on humans per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 27 so the category can be deleted and the log closed. Thanks.—Chidom talk  07:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protected request 

message: * Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-04 Tiger
If anyone can volunteer to mediate the case and honestly state that they're neutral on the matters, please feel free to do so. There is one assistant mediator assigned, but those with an ear to sort out the problems are welcome. 
Before joining in the case and suggesting changes to the article, please review the verifiability and reliable sources policies, as they may be of use in this situation. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t)  22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal case 

message: You have done well, keep up the good work, and don't get bothered by the nasty comments and rididulous arguments put in the discussion page by some users. To make it short, I am keeping a copy of an old version of this article(the one that appears during the time the source has been blocked) as a benchmark. If any malicious user tries to ruin the page with falsified inf, I'll erase their edits and restore the old good contents.  --S--
:I agree with the above. This is a good, solid, article about an important animal. I am grateful to those who have brought substantive contributions to it, and hope that the arguments will come to an end soon, if they haven't already. Badbilltucker 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: to the positive contributors

message: I think that the question about whether the liger is larger than the tiger can be easily resolved if we change the statement to "the tiger is the largest cat species", as ligers are not technically a species. I can also see that the question regarding tigers preying on alligators could be resolved by perhaps indicating on the pages of the appropriate subspecies of tiger that those specific subspecies have been known to prey on crocodiles, if it is only documented in the cases of some specific subspecies. I guess the other major question, which based on my own limited knowledge I myself cannot answer, is whether the existing list of tiger prey is otherwise so inclusive that, given the percentage of times that crocodiless are tiger prey, they are frequent or significant enough to be specifically named as prey in this article? Are there any other prey of tigers which might be more frequent/significant prey of the tiger which have not yet been mentioned? If yes, then I would think that the crocodiles should not be included, as more significant prey of tigers are not specifically named either. Badbilltucker 20:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for calling my attention to my error regarding alligator/crocodile, which on the basis of your comment I have since corrected. But my second question wasn't really about crocodile consumption, but rather what constitutes the average diet of the average tiger. IF crocodiles are, as it were, the next most-frequently consumed prey (based on either frequency or volume) after those already listed, then I think a reasonable case can be made for its conclusion in the article. IF they aren't, then I think that there isn't sufficient reason to include it, until and unless all the more-frequently preyed-upon animals are included as well. Regarding your point on tigers/ligers, actually, ligers cannot reproduce, and thus are not technically a species. Keeping the single word "species" in "largest species" should be sufficient to resolve that question. Badbilltucker 14:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding tiger size and crocodiles as tiger prey 

message: http://www.savethetigerfund.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=TCL_Media_Kit
See the link above and please replace the current map with the map at this link. It is the combined work of 160 of the world's leading tiger researchers. You are welcome to ascribe it a creative commons 2.5 licence with Save The Tiger as The Author
Brian Gratwicke, Assistant Director Save The Tiger Fund —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian.gratwicke (talk • contribs) .
:The maps you've linked show no tigers in China except for the far North, which is obviously the Siberian tiger. Does this mean the South Chinese tiger is extinct in the wild? --Tommyknocker 23:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAP needs updating 

message: Dude, a tiger could totally beat up a crocodile...
Anyway, on average tigers will live for 10 to 15 years out in the wild and 16 to 20 years in captivity .
We've had a lot of talk about crocodiles and tigers, and I think it depends on the size of the combatants and location of the struggle. Figure out what I mean yourself, it's pretty obvious... Dora Nichov 14:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average Lifespan 

message: From 
It seems like this might make a worthwhile addition to the article, but I'm not really sure where the best place to add this information would be... TerraFrost 06:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite sickening, when wild populations are struggling with low numbers and a stagnant gene pool, 10,000 animals are being domesticated and kept in cages for rich Americans. How many of these I wonder have been captured through the pet trade? All of them at some point must have had ancestors that were. If the owners are attacked they get what they deserve, it's not just a matter of animal cruelty, but the conservation of an entire species essential to it's natural environment. --Tommyknocker 13:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to add that many of these are probably hybrids of different subspecies, destroying thousands of years of genetic isolation and evolution (and possible future speciation). These hybrids also have problems with disease and retardation, meaning they will likely not survive if released back into the wild (much like the mass bred 'white tigers'). --Tommyknocker 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the United States owns more Tigers then anywhere else in the world 

message: lions are capable of amazing feats of strength. for example, a 416 lb lion can pull a carcass weighing 1000 lbs a distance of over 400 feet. that`s about a 60% difference in weight, so lions, as such, would need a muscle mass of about 60%. and this makes sense because with about 600 muscles in it`s body, higher percentages in muscle percentage is impossible at weights higher than 416 lbs, which i deduce must be a lions average weight. such a feat takes the strength of 10 men.
at 416 lbs, a lion has about 250 lbs of muscle. the average 150 lb man has about 40% of muscle. even though people have less than 1/10th the muscle mass of a lion, a lion`s muscles, at similar weights, are 40% stronger, due to their far hectic lifestyle.
recent reports from zoologists have found that a study of about 15 male siberians captured and released in the wild much smaller than previously thought, and not one tiger was found to weigh over 420 lbs.
lions, living in prides and having to protect the territory, are taller with big manes, as this aids in intimidation and helps to prevent a fight by conveying the message of being strong and powerful. even so, lions fight often, and 50% of all males die in fights with rivals. such fighting, over time, has made the lion a more aggressive animal.
tigers, living alone, have longer teeth and claws, an adaptation that suits a lone hunter. also, they have shorter legs. shorter legs produce more speed.
example: limbs, when moved, fall in a curve pattern. shorter limbs have a shorter curve and so takes less time to reach it`s mark. also, the receptors that send the command to move has less distance to travel before it reaches the brain. the shorter the distance traveled, the quicker your reaction. with their short limbs, tigers are capable of great speed and agility, and are, on average, 15% faster than lions.
tigers, with their shorter limbs, use up more energy quicker, so they tire easily. that`s one of the reasons they live in forests; it provides the perfect cover for a shorter chase.
also, here`s some info from zoos and documentaries; a lion named moran from “planet carnivore” was said to weigh 500 lbs. it was said on ‘explorer that a male siberian weighed 500lbs. on ‘awesome pawsome’ it was stated that tigers usually weigh about 500 lbs in zoos. from a zoo mentioned in a previous post had a siberian tiger that weighed 600 lbs, and was very fat looking. a lion, similarly, at another zoo, weighed 600 lbs. one of clyde beatty`s lions weighed 650 lbs. a fight between a lion and tiger was mentioned that stated the lion weighed 500 lbs while the tiger weighed 450 lbs.
peter jackson, a big cat expert, says the heaviest lion weighed 930 lbs, compared to 932 lbs from a siberian tiger named jaipur. he claims there`s no difference size wise.
http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/wildk...t/expert_1.html
also, it should be noted that the heaviest CONFIRMED nepalese bengal tiger weighed 227 kgs, while the largest tsavo lion weighed 272 kgs.
mazak, a big cat expert, claims that record of the 857 lb wild bengal tiger wasn`t confirmed, and isn`t reliable. however, the largest wild lion weighed 702 lbs.
also, author of the book "tiger in the snow" claims he knows of no wild tiger over 650 lbs, and that hunters weights of tigers claim in the past were mere estimates.
as you can see from my above statements, tigers are no bigger than lions.jimmylionjimmylion (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lion and tiger comparisons