Talk:Tiger

They weigh up to 306kg?

That is surely false precision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision How are numbers normally converted from or into SI? Saying that something weighs up to 306 pounds really implies extreme precision and small variance. I even think that the 670lb thing is a bit too accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.216.61 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree if it said something like "Tigers typically weigh 90–306 kg", but doesn't the "up to" in the article imply 306 kg is the greatest weight recorded? I can't access the cited source ([1]). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

agreed. Saying it weighing up to 670lb and reaching a length up to 3.3m in the intro yet saying a specimen weighed 857lb in the content is weird enough, especially it is being nominated for a GA. Just corrected the intro and added the reference for this reliably measured 857lb specimen. Note the 857lb specimen has a length of 3.38m over the curves. The use of the words "up to" must be followed by the largest known measurements - 3.3m and 670lb are clearly not the maximum values based on reliable records. BigCat82 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

GA possibility

I've been thinking of bring this article to GAN. I think it just needs some fixing up, (source formatting and maybe a spotcheck) and a little more info. Anybody interested? Any major contributors? LittleJerry (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why not. It is not far off. I have tidied up text and images, removed some old uncited claims, and cut the conservation and human interaction material from the subspecies section, where it doesn't belong. Having looked where to put it, it seems mostly not usable or redundant with existing conservation discussion, so here it is in case anyone can see how to save (some of) it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(Bengal tiger) (described in existing conservation section)

In 1972, Project Tiger was founded in India aiming at ensuring a viable population of tigers in the country and preserving areas of biological importance as a natural heritage for the people. But the illicit demand for bones and body parts from wild tigers for use in traditional Chinese medicine is the reason for the unrelenting poaching pressure on tigers on the Indian subcontinent. Between 1994 and 2009, the Wildlife Protection Society of India has documented 893 cases of tigers killed in India, which is just a fraction of the actual poaching and illegal trade in tiger parts during those years. An area of special conservation interest lies in the Terai Arc Landscape in the Himalayan foothills of northern India and southern Nepal, where 11 protected areas comprising dry forest foothills and tall grass savannas harbor tigers in a landscape of 49,000 square kilometres (19,000 sq mi). The goals are to manage tigers as a single metapopulation, the dispersal of which between core refuges can help maintain genetic, demographic, and ecological integrity, and to ensure that species and habitat conservation becomes mainstreamed into the rural development agenda. In Nepal, a community-based tourism model has been developed with a strong emphasis on sharing benefits with local people and on the regeneration of degraded forests. The approach has been successful in reducing poaching, restoring habitats, and creating a local constituency for conservation.

(Indochinese tiger)

According to government estimates of national tiger populations, the subspecies numbers around 350 individuals.

(Malayan tiger)

According to official government figures, the population in the wild may number around 500 individuals, but is under considerable poaching pressure. The Malayan tiger is the smallest of the mainland tiger subspecies, and the second-smallest living subspecies, with males averaging about 120 kg (260 lb) and females about 100 kg (220 lb) in weight. The Malayan tiger is a national icon in Malaysia, appearing on its coat of arms and in logos of Malaysian institutions, such as Maybank.

(Sumatran tiger)

Their rarity has led to suggestions that Sumatran tigers should have greater priority for conservation than any other subspecies. While habitat destruction is the main threat to existing tiger population (logging continues even in the supposedly protected national parks), 66 tigers were recorded as being shot and killed between 1998 and 2000, or nearly 20% of the total population.

(South China tiger)

In 2007, a farmer spotted a tiger and handed in photographs to the authorities as proof. The photographs in question, however, were later exposed as fake, copied from a Chinese calendar and digitally altered, and the "sighting" turned into a massive scandal.

I think the websites "Lairweb.org" and "Bangalinet.com" is inappropriate as a source. I'm not sure about "Bigcathaven.org" and "Bigcatrescue.org". LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is shaping up well. The only problem I see is the noted sources still being there. I'll expand more on communication and evolution soon. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think there is too much in the "Conservation" section about conservation of the different sub-species? Each subspecies has its own article and I propose moving the conservation bits to these, just leaving a summary here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, so we'll have just a unified conservation text for the whole species. In that case I think we can ditch the text I already removed above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the "Interspecific predatory relationships" subsection is too big? LittleJerry (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to expand more on communication. Meanwhile, I think "Colour variations" should be rewritten with better sources (and possibly shorter with no subsections). Once these are done, I think we're ready for GA. Any other thoughts? LittleJerry (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we don't need to cut down 'Tiger attacks' to a more coherent and concise story. It is long, chatty, and somewhat rambling - do we need to discuss leopards, etc, in there? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I think we should add some info on genomics. I find this.

Also, I wonder if 'Characteristics and evolution' is a well-formed section. Maybe 'Description', to contain the current 'characteristics' (not a great name, nor necessary) and the Colour variations stuff, and 'Evolution' to contain the phylogeny, genomics, and subspecies? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

tigers & elephants - source misrepresentation

I am checking the accuracy of each cite, and I noticed the following content has been here for many years:

Adult elephants are too large to serve as common prey, but conflicts between tigers and Asian elephants, with the huge elephant typically dominating the predator, were recorded in the nineteenth century (Frank Leslie's popular monthly, Volume 45, 1879, edited by Frank Leslie, New York: Frank Leslie's Publishing House. 53, 55, & 57 Park Place. p. 411)

However the following is what the source exactly reads (p. 411):

...Elephants are very fearful of tigers, and always show more or less alarm when in their vicinity. I have known many on elephant to turn tail and run away when near the tiger's lair, and sometimes all the efforts of the mahout failed to check them. Not infrequently they run under the limbs of trees in their flight, and the howdah and its occupants are brushed off. Major R , of Lucknow, was killed in this way during a tiger-hunt in the Pumeah district. A tiger charged his elephant, and the latter ran away. As it passed under a tree the howdah was swept off, and the major and his servant were both killed by the fall. When in the neighborhood of a tiger the elephant generally holds his trunk high in the air, as it is his most vulnerable point, and he is anxious to protect it from injury. In a fight with a tiger the elephant uses his trunk very little, through fear of injury, but endeavors to trample his enemy under foot or pierce him with his tusks. Once let an elephant get his heavy foot fairly on a tiger, and the fight is soon over; it is all up with the yellow-coated thief -or, rather, it is all down with him. But in the majority of fights between them, the tiger generally gets the best of it, or would do so, if man did not come to the elephant's aid. In one of our hunts in the northeast we had one elephant killed by a tiger-or, rather, he was so badly hurt that he died the next day-and another very severely wounded. Even the elephant's thick hide cannot resist the tiger's claws; and as for his teeth, they have been known to make an impression on a plate of iron...

Please notice the bold text, "...in the majority of fights between them, the tiger generally gets the best of it". Yet in the content it says "...the huge elephant typically dominating the predator". There is no such an implication in the original source, so it is purely a made up statement. In fact the opposite is true according to the source. Tigers attacking elephants yet usually got dominated by the elephants simply contradicts any aspect of the behavior of most predators like tigers and leopards, which are very cautious predators. They will attack only if they think they have a high chance of dominating the prey. I have corrected it to reflect exactly what the source said. There are some more reliable news reports on tigers killing adult elephants but I don't want to expand it further. BigCat82 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BigCat82. Your input and changes are much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A list of misinformation identified so far

Okay the following inaccuracies and misinformation were identified throughout the GA review process, and I will update this section with newly detected misinformation without starting a new section before the GA review finishes for the ease of reading. Most if not all the problems were about understatements and negative comments(!) on tigers, and as discussed earlier they may be the remnants of past vandalism. These areas are the obvious targets chosen to minimize tigers so I am putting up the list for easy monitoring in the future. Everything that is being listed here has been just corrected by me or by the GA editors.

• Hunting & diet:
  • Elephant & tiger conflicts: Tigers preying upon elephants of different growth stages, from calves to adults is well documented in independent sources. Yet the original content misrepresented the source, saying elephants typically dominating tigers while the source quoted said exactly the opposite. On the other hand, lion prides attacking adult healthy elephants lacks documentation but the misinformation had been in the lion article using a source that documented lions preying on an elephant calf before I just removed it.
  • Hunting success rate: Sources reported 5 to 50% success rate, but the text cherry picked the lowest possible number and was negatively written as "However, only one in 20 hunts" ends in a successful kill rather than neutrally reflected what was said in the sources. In fact, according to the latest study, the lower limit of 5% was just a plain guess (in fact 5% success rate is the lowest rate much lower than the reported hunting success rate of all other big cats) and the study showed that at least for Amur tigers, their hunting success rate is 40-50% depending on prey and geographic locations. Since the study only refuted the error but didn't calculate the general hunting success rate of all tiger subspecies in general, I cannot use it here. But at least the upper limit 50% reported in the original sources must be included here.
• Interspecific predatory relationships:
  • Content on certain prey species killing tigers & further elaboration. "Crocodiles, bears and dholes may prevail against and even kill tigers.[5][43][89] In particular, dholes may attack and kill a tiger if pack is quite large.[83]" Undue weight was given here as crocodiles, bears and dholes are tigers' prey, and tigers being killed by them are extraordinarily rare and ill documented. Like the reasons discussed in the separate tiger elephant talk section, tigers are cautious predators (in fact more cautious than lions from the opinions of animal experts) and will attack only if they estimate a high chance of dominating the prey. If not, they simply don't attack. Crocodiles, bears and dholes run slower than tigers so the exceptional strong individuals are simply unable to actively pursuit and kill a tiger as long as the tiger stays out of their ways. As a matter of fact, the much larger and more powerful Nile crocodiles killing lions is also extraordinarily rare, so the smaller mugger crocodile that are less than half the weight of the Nile crocodile killing tigers (which are bigger and stronger than lions) is simply equally rare if not rarer. Yes salt water crocodiles are powerful and can devour tigers and lions if they come close, but encounters with these monsters are very rare, and again no tiger and lion will commit suicide by actively running to them as it simply contradicts any aspect of the behavior of most predators. As for dholes, there were only two cases of dholes killing tigers of unknown ages, sizes and health conditions with heavy casualties with unknown reasons were reported briefly throughout the history, and according to an extensive study on dhole and tiger relationship by Dr Karanth, no single tiger, adult or cub, were killed since 1990. I am not saying these incidents have never happened but these extraordinarily rare incidents should not be included due to WP:UNDUE - hyenas are well known natural enemies of lions, and hyenas killing healthy adult lions is not uncommon and well documented but it isn't even mentioned anywhere in the lion article at all as of now. On the other hand, crocodiles, bears and dholes are not considered natural enemies but prey of tigers. In fact, the use of word "may" also suggests the statement is speculative to some extent.

I have restored this. The comment relates to general conflicts and not just killings. LittleJerry (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weight & dimensions:
  • The biggest individual. The biggest reliably measured specimen is 857 lb, not 675 lb as originally stated in the intro as the upper limit. Tigers in captivity actually attain sizes way beyond this limit (e.g. the famous 1,025 lb siberian tiger Jaipur), but I think measurements of wild tigers are more meaningful.

BigCat82 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Cogratulations

This is my official congratulations for raising this page to WP:GA: !--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

On behalf of all of us who've worked to get it there, Tony, thanks. :) Shoebox2 talk 23:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

How big are they without the tail?

Without knowing how long their tails are, giving a measure from head to tail isn't very helpful to give an idea of how big they are. --186.204.50.67 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The article states - "Of a tiger's total length, the tail comprises 0.6 to 1.1 m (2.0 to 3.6 ft).[13]". Does this help?__DrChrissy (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reorganised that section slightly to emphasise the aforementioned statement re: tail length. In addition, the Siberian tiger's dimensions as given in the table specifically call out body and tail length as distinct (appropriately I think, as this subspecies represents the extreme end of size comparison). Shoebox2 talk 13:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried editing the tables with seperate columns for "weight", "length with tail" and "length without tail" but the table looked awful so I scrapped it.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This section has a couple of problems. First, what is the "modern era" - this needs defining. Second, it states there are nine subspecies, the tables show 9 subspecies, but the taxo box lists 10 subspecies - which is correct?__DrChrissy (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As per the edit summary I left in reverting your changes: there are ten total subspecies of tiger currently recognised. One is prehistoric, and hence known only from fossils; there's thus no real point in including it in the table. The others all survived at least until fairly recently, hence "into the modern era" (a term that is generally understood to mean "comparatively recently"). I'll take a crack at making all this a bit clearer. Shoebox2 talk 12:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The changes you have made are great! Thanks for the effort and time.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Please don't hesitate to raise any other issues as you find them; the input of specialist editors in an article like this is always valuable and appreciated. Shoebox2 talk 12:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014

Tigers - Recent genetic studies of Tigers have startled scientists and have shown that Tigers are more closely related to Snow Leopards rather than Lions, Jaguars & Leopards as previously thought and mentioned on the 'Tigers' Wikipedia page where it states 'Tigers are more closely related to Lions, Jaguars & Leopards'.<1><2> Refer to 'BBC News articles', 'Wildlife Extra News' just to name a couple of sources for the news of the recent find. 1.BBC News Article, Wildlife Extra Kind Regards, Mike Raft110.20.86.90 (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Done: Note however that the finding was based only on similarities found in a very short DNA sequence in mitochondria and the sex chromosomes. It was the opinion of BBC to refute the tiger/lion/leopard relationship but the paper wasn't as conclusive as BBC claimed to be. BigCat82 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Caspian Tiger locations

This article is semi-protected so I can't do this, but can someone please correct the cardinal direction in the Caspian Tiger section? All of the geographical regions mentioned in that section are EAST of the Caspian Sea, not WEST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredirc (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find the problem you mentioned, before or after your above edit. Are you talking about our Caspian tiger article? BigCat82 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The text in question: Was found in the sparse forest habitats and riverine corridors west and south of the Caspian Sea and west through Central Asia into the Takla-Makan desert of Xinjiang, (Emphasis mine) While the first part of the statement is true, about it being found west and south (more accurately southwest, but accurate enough), but the SECOND west is entirely wrong, as Central Asia, Takla-Makan, and Xinjang are all definetly EAST of the Caspian Sea, and thus east of the previous geographical references of its range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredirc (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done: thanks for pointing it out. BigCat82 (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Social activity

"Young males seeking to establish themselves thereby comprise the highest mortality rate (30–35% per year) amongst adult tigers" - syntax is a bit garbled here, and the sentence is unclear, but I don't want to try and guess the intended meaning. Can anyone fix? Notreallydavid (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

Please return File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg to the reproduction section. It is a featured picture and is of Siberian tigers. We already have too many images of Bengals. 155.138.234.14 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Wild images are preferred over captive images. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant since the environment still looks like a natural environment. 155.138.246.163 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)