Talk:Tiger/Archive 5

Mythical attacks on large crocodiles
OK, there have been several attempts to add in a 3rd-hand rumored account of a tiger killing a large saltwater crocodile, which I have removed. There are several reasons for this:
 * 1) There is no scientific confirmation. Though the article is quoting a scientist, that individual is himself merely relaying a tale he was told.  There are no photos, specimens, videos, or firsthand accounts to give this any more credence than a Big Fish story.
 * 2) The details of the attack flatly contradict any aspect of the behavior of real crocodiles, and in some cases contradict physics itself:
 * a) No crocodile attacks prey on land with its tail. Ever.  They will thrash when captured, and they will move it as an inertial aide to whipping their head around to bite, but no crocodile will use its tail as a primary weapon.  Prey are attacked only via lunging forward with the head or rapidly swiping the head sideways (or combinations or sequences of these), never with the tail.  The use of the tail as a prey-disabling weapon is a widespread myth about crocodilians with no basis in fact.
 * b) Striking it in the head will do absolutely nothing except piss it off. Their heads are massive blocks of almost solid bone, and they routinely slam into prey from all angles with their heads.  Additionally, during male-male combat, head impacts occur frequently.  As strong as a tiger may be, it has little chance of stunning an animal whose skull has specifically evolved to withstand massive impacts on a regular basis.
 * c) Flipping a massive crocodile over, especially before it can escape, would be essentially impossible. The account itself gives a weight of 1,800 lb, roughly the mass of a small car.  Again, tigers are strong, but they cannot flip cars (if they did, many parks would have to seriously re-evaluate their safety protocols).
 * 3) The account postulates an absurdly large crocodile, a truly massive male. Not impossible in size, but definitely in the top 2% or less of adults in terms of size.  While such animals exist, the huge size is strongly suggestive of a Big Fish tale.

I do not suggest any deception or malice on the part of the individual reporting this, merely that he was suckered by a tall tale. And predation of tigers on crocodiles is certainly possible, though probably in of smaller individuals and in a much less dramatic way. Hell, a tiger could likely take out even a huge croc if that croc were stranded on land (caught during treks between rivers or when a river dried up). But as it stands, we have an unverified 3rd-hand account of a ludicrously large crocodile which behaves in ways no crocodile has ever been seen to and succumbs to attacks that most crocodiles tolerate with ease, and is then dispatched in a highly unusual way by a ludicrously strong tiger. I liken this to reports of 30 foot anacondas or reticulated pythons - such individuals may be possible, and may even currently exist, but the extraordinary nature of such beasts requires extraordinary proof. The same holds true here - given the extremely implausible details of this account, more proof is needed than a 3rd-hand story. HCA (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting points there and I agree that, stating this as a regular fact would make it obviously need more sources. What remains is whether we should then quote this tale, which I still think is irrelevant unless this has been covered by multiple sources. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bravo for HCA's effort and detailed arguments!! I agree to remove this tale and reference from the article, and use a peer-reviewed scientific source to reference this claim if this exists at all. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to address this reference in detail. As stated earlier, I disagree with your position to some extent but appreciate the civil and reasoned approach. I hope to maintain this level of discourse in my response below.

My position is that Dr. Sandal is an individual with an extraordinary amount of credibility on this subject, which is the behavior of and potential interaction between bengal tigers and saltwater crocs in the Sundarban region of India and Bangladesh. As someone with such outstanding credentials and with such a unique knowledge base, I feel it is highly unlikely that he would believe or repeat an account that is implausible. In fact, I believe that his judgment in choosing to relay this account deserves the benefit of the doubt, given his unique and exceptional credentials in this field, which include years of firsthand observation.

Regarding the specifics of the account itself, I will respond to the three points above individually:

1) The account does not state that a crocodile attacked the tiger with its tail while the two were on land. Instead, it describes the two animals swimming across a waterway, with the croc in pursuit of the tiger.

2) I didn't see any claims in the account of the tiger striking the crocodile in the skull. As far as I can tell, the attack consisted of the tiger managing to turn the croc over as they both reached the edge of the waterway and then attacking the crocodile's underside after it was turned over.

3) I disagree with the proposition that it would be physically impossible for a tiger to flip a crocodile onto its back. First off, it's a bit of an exaggeration to liken an 1800 lb. croc to the weight of a small car. The smallest "standard" models tend to weigh well over 2500 lbs, and even a 3200 lb. vehicle would be considered "small." Those weights are substantially more than the 1800 lb estimation for this crocodile. The only cars in that weight class are "smart cars," and I'm not sure I would trust the notion that a tiger or other large/strong animal couldn't flip a smart car, although I doubt they would have much interest in doing so.

Having said that, I concur that it is unlikely that the croc from this account weighed 1800 lbs. It's well known that even the most experienced and credible observers tend to overestimate the size and weight of large terrestrial animals (bears, crocs, tigers, lions, elephants, constrictors, rhinos, etc.) and it seems likely that this was the case in this instance as well. The only reason I added the weight at all was that someone had previously modified the article to state that the crocodile in question was "small," perhaps because of some confusion over the source account where Sandal was prompted to relay this story to the writer by the sight of a different, small saltwater croc in the Sundarbans. The point was that the crocodile in question was not considered "small" by the observer or Sandal. However, assuming that the crocodile weighed less than 1800 lbs, this would increase the possibility of the tiger being strong enough to turn it over. Again, I'm not suggesting that this would be an easy task for the tiger, but the given the specifics of the story (the crocodile pursuing the tiger from river to riverbank and the tiger turning the tables at the edge of the river), I don't think it stretches the bounds of credulity as much as you suggest. And again, I think we should defer to Dr. Sandal to some extent as I don't believe it's fair to assume that he would believe or relay an account that is so preposterous, given his expertise on the subject.

On the subject of the ability of a tiger to subdue a crocodile in general, I think it is worth noting that bengals have been observed hunting large muggers on land or in very shallow water on numerous occasions in other areas of India. Some have even been known to specialize in hunting large crocs. Certainly, a saltwater croc is a larger and more aggressive species than the mugger, but by the same token there is enough overlap in sizes of mugger and salties that evidence of mugger predation suggests that a tiger has the capability of subduing a saltwater croc as well in the right circumstances.

Clearly, interaction between tigers and saltwater crocodiles in the Sundarbans is extremely rare, given the dearth of accounts on the subject. It seems likely that both apex predators give the other a wide berth in most circumstances, which makes sense given the capabilities of the two species. However, on the rare occasion where circumstances have left one or the other particularly vulnerable to attack, both are such highly-capable predators that they are likely to take advantage (as you stated above, and as relayed in the 2011 account of the crocodile preying upon the tiger).

Your conclusion was that we have "an unverified 3rd-hand account of a ludicrously large crocodile which behaves in ways no crocodile has ever been seen to and succumbs to attacks that most crocodiles tolerate with ease, and is then dispatched in a highly unusual way by a ludicrously strong tiger", but as I stated above, the account does not really describe the crocodile as behaving in strange ways or succumbing to an unusual attack because the account doesn't indicate that the crocodile attacked the tiger with its tail when they were on land or that the tiger struck a blow to the crocodile's skull. Whether the crocodile attacked the tiger with its tail at all as they crossed the waterway is likely up for debate as I am sure it would have been difficult for an observer to tell exactly what was going on amidst the likely splashing and thrashing that probably would have accompanied this interaction. But I just don't agree that the account itself is as contrary to known science as you seem to think.

The fact that Sandal relayed this account to a journalist rather than observing it himself is certainly worth pointing out, and I concede that the extreme weight estimation for the crocodile in question seems a bit dubious and should not be included due to the potential for misleading readers. But again, the fact that Sandal himself chose to believe and relay this account, given his expertise on the subject itself and extreme credibility, should be the deciding factor here in my opinion. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to assume that such an expert would be duped by a fabricated account and I am confident that such an expert would reject an account that flagrantly contradicts his observations and/or known science. For this reason, I feel that the reference to this account should remain in the story and readers should have the ability to click on the New Yorker citation to obtain the full details. Respectfully, Ronnymexico (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While, upon further reading, I was wrong about "striking it in the head" (though that text does appear in the WP text I removed), the article does state, and I quote: "Crossing a broad river, like this one, a tiger had been followed by a crocodile. Maneuvering alongside the tiger, the crocodile thrashed its great tail, striking the tiger across his nose."
 * This is flat-out false. No crocodile would use its tail as a primary or initial means of attack, ever.  Second, the flipping is still ludicrous, especially given that it's depicted as done with one paw, and that it's depicted as being done to a live, conscious croc.  What, did it just sit there and let it happen rather than crushing the tiger in its jaws?  And even if it were possible, the croc would simply rapidly flip back over (as they do when spinning for the colorfully-named "death rolls").  I'm sitting here, trying to think of any possible way to flip a large crocodile without being immediately killed, and drawing a blank.  Maybe the tiger was driving a fork-lift?
 * Dr. Sanyal's credentials are irrelevant - plenty of well-meaning experts have been duped in the past about the existence of assorted gigantic or exotic beasts. Hell, there are PhD anthropologists who believe in Bigfoot.  Not to mention the numerous accounts, sometimes presented by people with substantial field experience and/or scientific training, of 30+ foot snakes.
 * The fact of the matter is that this account is unverified, undocumented, and requires both ludicrous physical strength from the tiger and behavior that is a contradictory to crocodilian hunting as a bear riding a unicycle. Until a peer-reviewed scientific journal article is presented as evidence, it will be removed. HCA (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Change "man-eating" to "human-eating"
There have been cases of tigers eating women, not just men. The word "human" means both men and women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.57.240.170 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013
Please change "Minnesota University" to "The University of Minnesota" this is its proper name. This occurs at the end of the first paragraph of the success of rewilding section. The page that is linked to is for The University of Minnesota and the person who is referenced works there. http://fwcb.cfans.umn.edu/Faculty/Smith/

Olso1912 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done with thanks, Nici  Vampire  Heart  14:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013
The statement about white tigers being widely bred in zoos in not correct. "A well-known allele produces the white tiger, an animal which is rare in the wild but widely bred in zoos due to its popularity" The sentence infers that all zoos are breeding them. Most AZA-accredited zoos are not breeding white tigers. The SSP view is that the limited available space for tigers should be devoted to genetically important tigers. There are many private individuals and non-accredited zoos that are breeding white tigers.

Shepmantis (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed and Yes check.svg Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Climate change?
Removed the claim that tiger attacks are increasing on humans because of rapid habitat losses due to climate change. The "citation" was a link to an environmental news website that republished a 2008 Reuters article. The basis of this entire claim was an extremely weak 2 sentence quote from an "expert" from the World Conservation Union. No reference to any sort of legitimate study or research. Absolute garbage unless it can be properly verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.98.225 (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree: it's a dubious claim to say the least. While climate change is unlikely to do any good to tigers, and habitat loss is indeed the major cause of decline, that habitat loss is mainly due to human expansion.  If that expansion is related to climate change, it is not by a simple mechanism.  Richard New Forest (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree but note the claim is still there. Can it be removed please? Gcmackay (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014
I wish to add valuable insights about the phenotype differences between different species of tigers.

Yoloswerver (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please specify your valuable insights here and a confirmed editor will consider adding them to the article.  Dwpaul  Talk   00:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Film, theatre
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; what else should we include? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that, but I think that section needs some citations. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, let's not forget the tiger as a symbol for sports teams like the Detroit Tigers and Cincinnati Bengals. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed not, you should certainly add them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Could you add at one cite for the first and third parahraphs in "In literature and film". LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't see much point in adding the primary references (the books and films themselves), which are self-referencing; nor do we normally try to reference plot descriptions, when we describe the content of a book or film we just do it, see any book or film article. Since that's all these contain, at a loss to know what a ref would be; IMDB etc are not specially good, and neither necessary nor specially relevant. If you have an idea what is needed, feel free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright then. LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think we have all the major cultural references. I recently added Tony the Tiger. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. And Esso/Exxon corp. used the slogan "Put a tiger in your tank"... which would certainly need citing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 29 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 49000 km2. 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 and females about 100 kg 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)

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 . 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 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. :) Shoebox 2   talk  23:43, 12 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)

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. Shoebox 2   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. Shoebox 2   talk  12:55, 26 April 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)

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)

tigers & elegantes - 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)

Just saying but BigCat82 you have got a good point and thanks for changing it Lavinder111 (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2015 (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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Stupid comment but what does all that DNA stuff mean? Lavinder111 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (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)

Surely it should be done I don't know how to though or else I would!!!! Lavinder111 (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am confused! The image is included in the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree I am really confused as well! That picture is definitely there! I think... Lavinder111 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015
The tiger's closest living relatives were previously though to be the lion...

"though" should be "thought"

The tiger's closest living relatives were previously thought to be the lion

Cha Cha Wow (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅-- JAaron95 &#40; Talk &#41;  17:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A few minor problems.
I note the following errors: 1. "A 2010 genetic analysis shows the tiger began evolving 3.2 million years ago..." is risible. The tiger, as well as all other life on this planet, "began evolving" billions of years ago. I'm not clear on the research that this "factoid" is based on, so I don't know what the fossil evidence dated to 3.2 Mya is accepted to be evidence of. Possibilities include a distinctly "tigerish" morphology, a distinctly panthera morphology, or something else. 2. "In 1758, Linnaeus first described the species in his work...". Another laughable statement! Shakespeare used the word "tiger" in Henry V, 1598 C.E., so the idea that it took another 160 years for someone to "describe" them (in Europe, I suppose) is preposterous, imho. I'm no scholar, so I can't be sure that Old Will meant panthera tigris, but I'd guess that since the species was ENDEMIC to eastern Europe, he did. My point here is that certainly there are Asian descriptions of tigers that document the species prior to 1758! So, it is astoundingly provincial to claim "Linnaeus FIRST described...". (and yes, I realize that "systematic, scientific" documentation is (also) noteworthy, but never-the-less.) 3. The section on man-eaters claims "Most man-eating tigers are old, are missing teeth, and are unable to capture their preferred prey." and fails to provide an authoratative source. Miquelle appears to be an authority, BUT this type of claim needs a solid EVIDENTIARY basis, rather than opinion or hearsay. Broken tooth? Old? Meaningless obfuscatory babble. The same section, later on has the statement:"...some healthy tigers have hunted humans." and that some attacks are territorial. You can't have it both ways. I submit that "most" means > 50% and that unless a PEER REVIEWED source is cited, it should be removed. Fact is, people are killed by tigers (healthy and otherwise) for a variety of reasons. The whole sections seems to have been written by an apologist and is NOT npov. Chances are, the major reason attacks happen is habitat loss, but I digress... Given the fact that tigers have been eating people (and vice versa) for millenia, we need to get our facts straight and stop the PETA apologetics. It is diappointing that the authors of this seem to think they are able to "divine" the intent of a tiger. Cats are KNOWN to kill without ANY purpose (tangible purpose, including protecting territory). I submit that claiming the attack on the 8 tourists was "territorial" is magical thinking (so typical of modern "soft science"). Its likely, but to claim it as fact is just wrong. And what does the tigress having 8 cubs have to do with it? I suppose that the attacks IN CAPTIVITY are "territorial" or predatory too? Not. (and don't hand me any of that "oh, but that's different" nonsense.) They kill unprevoked, and prevoked. They kill for food, out of instinct, and out of fear. I'd also be interested in learning where in the world you can find an adult apex predator which has never had "prior contact" with humans. How do you think you could go about proving that, for gosh sakes!?216.96.76.38 (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Animals
lions eat meat and other things like deer or small animals

mating males and females are fully muture at the age of six or eight and when they are ready they can start there season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.224.164 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015
192.208.157.139 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Altamel (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

etymology

 * The specific epithet, tigris, as well as the common name, tiger, come from the Middle English tigre and the Old English tigras (a plural word), both used for the animal. These derive from the Old French tigre, itself a derivative of the Latin word tigris and the Greek word tigris. ...

What, the Linnaean species name is Latinized from the Middle English name, rather than taken from Latin or Greek directly?? — I'd take out any explicit mention of Middle/Old English or Old French and say something more like


 * The Greek and Latin word tigris, which is used as the specific name in zoological taxonomy and is also the source of the English word tiger, may be derived from ...

—Tamfang (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2016 (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). Shoebox 2   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)

I guess it looked really messy?!?! Lavinder111 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What does "over curves" mean? It's not immediately clear.
 * Kortoso (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/tiger%20SEAsia%20Mazak.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140329231357/http://ebookbrowsee.net/accumulation-of-deleterious-mutations-due-to-inbreeding-in-tiger-population-pdf-d151828925 to http://ebookbrowsee.net/accumulation-of-deleterious-mutations-due-to-inbreeding-in-tiger-population-pdf-d151828925
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/issues/tiger_bioscience_cites.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101192450/http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Miquelle_Quigley_1996_Food_habits_of_Amur_tigers.pdf to http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Miquelle_Quigley_1996_Food_habits_of_Amur_tigers.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121109124216/http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Rabinowitz_2009_Stop_the_Bleeding_Tiger_Conservation_Protocol.pdf to http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Rabinowitz_2009_Stop_the_Bleeding_Tiger_Conservation_Protocol.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425070141/http://cimar.org/Arquivo/Press_Releases/CurBio_Antunes_paper2008.pdf to http://cimar.org/Arquivo/Press_Releases/CurBio_Antunes_paper2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100718081839/http://www.iol.co.za:80/index.php?sf=143&set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20080312141948377C153394 to http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=143&set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20080312141948377C153394
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121109123729/http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/11/19/features/is-this-the-last-chance-to-save-the-tiger/215040/ to http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/11/19/features/is-this-the-last-chance-to-save-the-tiger/215040/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Largest Species?
When I read this I think of it being the species with the most number of extant individuals, or the most diverse species. Nothing could be further from the truth! Surely it should be changed from "largest cat species" to "largest species of cat" This makes it much more clear that the cat itself is what is large, not the species! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.52.205.124 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017
Leabh4 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017
Man taraneh 99 sal o 500 rozameh (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Soc314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment
Some of the information in the article does not have a source to go with it, and this information is definitely not common sense. Very well worded though! Alexajim (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources on the evolutionary history of the tiger
I noticed that there is very little detail on the evolutionary history of the tiger, particularly on its expansion and contraction of its range after the Middle Pleistocene. As I have perpetual exams at the moment, I am going to leave these sources here to substantiate this article in the future, as this is an essential part of understanding the intriguing biogeographic diversification, distribution and evolutionary success of the tiger. I would be very grateful if anyone with the time could integrate this information into the Taxonomy and Etymology section.


 * Biogeographical change in the tiger Panthera_tigris (Kitchener & Dugmore, 2000)


 * Predicted Pleistocene–Holocene range shifts of the tiger (Panthera tigris) (Cooper et al, 2016)


 * Planning tiger recovery: Understanding intraspecific variation for effective conservation (Wilting et al, 2015)


 * Mitochondrial Phylogeography Illuminates the Origin of the Extinct Caspian Tiger and Its Relationship to the Amur Tiger (Driscoll et al, 2009)


 * The Last Wild Tigers (Matthiessen, 2014)


 * http://www.paleobiodb.org/classic/displayReference?reference_no=34644

SuperTah (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll add to that list (and annotate yours above):
 * A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia (Mazak & Groves, 2006. This a study of the island tiger subspecies and proposes to separate tigers into three distinct species based on the Phylogenetic Species Concept. The principle author (Mazak) wrote the ASM Mammalian Species guide for the tiger. The proposal hasn't been followed but is similar to the proposals to reduce the subspecies to two and the article discusses the geographic isolation.
 * Phylogeography and Genetic Ancestry of Tigers (Panthera tigris) (Luo et al, 2004) - Mt-DNA analysis suggests common ancestor of modern tigers around 75kya. Discusses possibility of Toba eruption and retreat to refugium in south China.
 * It's a good idea for the article, but like you I haven't the time to do the subject justice. I'll think about an incremental approach, starting with a mention of the bottleneck and the Toba volcano, with subsequent expansion from a refugium, and the effects of the LGM. Jts1882 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What about this assertion: The Caspian Tiger,(Panthera tigris virgata) genetic roots span over a million years. A nearly cataclysmic event during the late Pleistocene Era, some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago nearly wiped out all tigers. Fortunately, a small remnant of tigers survived. In 2004 scientists revised the known classification to five tiger subspecies from eight previously identified.


 * Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-caspian-tiger-extinct-siberian.html#jCp


 * Is confirmed that tiger went almost extinct 12,000 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that source is accurate. My understanding is that the tiger lineage overall goes back more than a million years (see Wilting et al 2015 for references). Then around 75,000 years ago the Toba supereruption caused a global winter and this had a catastrophic effect on tiger populations, reducing them to a refugium in southern China (see Luo et al 2004, Wilting et al, 2015 ), from which the modern tigers expanded and differentiated into subspecies. This refugium explains the basal position of the South Chinese tiger (P. tigris amoyensis) in Mt-DNA analysis. Later, the LCM (10-20kya?) cause a retreat from northern Asia. Afterwards (ca 10kya) the ancestors of the Siberian and Caspian tigers migrated back into the vacated northern areas, either by the Gansu-silk road route (Driscoll et al 2009) or via northern China (Cooper et al, 2016).
 * The proposed subspecies revision is to two: continental and Sunda (see Wilting et al 2005). The two populations became after the LGM (see discussion in Cooper et al 2016). The eight to five revision refers to extant subspecies as unfortunately three are extinct. Jts1882 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017
Under Proposed reclassification of subspecies, in the last sentence of the second paragraph, "five additional extinct sub-species" should be changed to "three additional extinct subspecies". There are only three tiger subspecies that have gone extinct in recent times, and sub-species is not a proper term. TupanJara (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109123727/http://300pearls.naturalis.nl/dossiers/dossier.asp?xmlfile=N019.xml to http://300pearls.naturalis.nl/dossiers/dossier.asp?xmlfile=N019.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * After checking both the original link, and the archived link, neither worked properly, so I removed the cite. No worries as the cross-link to the well documented Trinil-tiger article should be enough here.
 * Thanks,
 * Warrenfrank (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)