Talk:Tiger/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Is tiger population rising

Is tiger population rising i mran it must be because i found this article but is it reliable The tiger population in Rajasthan has gone up with the birth of 28 cubs in the last two years, including two last month, wildlife officials said today.

"Twenty-five tiger cubs were born in Ranthambore (National Park) and three in Sariska (Tiger Reserve) from 2016 to 2018 till date," Rajasthan's Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW), G.V Reddy, told PTI. He described this as an achievement and a morale booster, considering the high mortality rate in tigers due to natural and anthropogenic causes. The current strength of tigers in Rajasthan stands at 85, including 70 in Ranthambore, 14 in Sariska and one in Mukundara Hills National Park. Field Director of Ranthambore National Park, Y.K Sahu, attributed the growth in numbers to the rehabilitation of villagers living in forest area, curbing illegal activities such as poaching and increasing prey base for the big cats. Eight tigers were translocated from Ramthambore to Sariska in 2008 to help boost the numbers of the wild cats. Three tigresses gave birth to seven cubs in Sariska Tiger Reserve between 2012 and 2017. Two cubs were spotted last month after a gap of two years. Reddy, who is also a member of Standing Committee of the State Board for Wildlife (SBWL), said that in a meeting of the body in April, several recommendations were made to prevent poaching of tigers in Sariska. The recommendations included fitting tigers with GPS-enable radio collars, round-the-clock monitoring by separate teams and relocation of villages from the reserve's periphery. The tiger population in Rajasthan has gone up with the birth of 28 cubs in the last two years, including two last month, wildlife officials said today.

"Twenty-five tiger cubs were born in Ranthambore (National Park) and three in Sariska (Tiger Reserve) from 2016 to 2018 till date," Rajasthan's Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW), G.V Reddy, told PTI. He described this as an achievement and a morale booster, considering the high mortality rate in tigers due to natural and anthropogenic causes. The current strength of tigers in Rajasthan stands at 85, including 70 in Ranthambore, 14 in Sariska and one in Mukundara Hills National Park. Field Director of Ranthambore National Park, Y.K Sahu, attributed the growth in numbers to the rehabilitation of villagers living in forest area, curbing illegal activities such as poaching and increasing prey base for the big cats. Eight tigers were translocated from Ramthambore to Sariska in 2008 to help boost the numbers of the wild cats. Three tigresses gave birth to seven cubs in Sariska Tiger Reserve between 2012 and 2017. Two cubs were spotted last month after a gap of two years. Reddy, who is also a member of Standing Committee of the State Board for Wildlife (SBWL), said that in a meeting of the body in April, several recommendations were made to prevent poaching of tigers in Sariska. The recommendations included fitting tigers with GPS-enable radio collars, round-the-clock monitoring by separate teams and relocation of villages from the reserve's periphery. The tiger population in Rajasthan has gone up with the birth of 28 cubs in the last two years, including two last month, wildlife officials said today.

"Twenty-five tiger cubs were born in Ranthambore (National Park) and three in Sariska (Tiger Reserve) from 2016 to 2018 till date," Rajasthan's Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW), G.V Reddy, told PTI. He described this as an achievement and a morale booster, considering the high mortality rate in tigers due to natural and anthropogenic causes. The current strength of tigers in Rajasthan stands at 85, including 70 in Ranthambore, 14 in Sariska and one in Mukundara Hills National Park. Field Director of Ranthambore National Park, Y.K Sahu, attributed the growth in numbers to the rehabilitation of villagers living in forest area, curbing illegal activities such as poaching and increasing prey base for the big cats. Eight tigers were translocated from Ramthambore to Sariska in 2008 to help boost the numbers of the wild cats. Three tigresses gave birth to seven cubs in Sariska Tiger Reserve between 2012 and 2017. Two cubs were spotted last month after a gap of two years. Reddy, who is also a member of Standing Committee of the State Board for Wildlife (SBWL), said that in a meeting of the body in April, several recommendations were made to prevent poaching of tigers in Sariska. The recommendations included fitting tigers with GPS-enable radio collars, round-the-clock monitoring by separate teams and relocation of villages from the reserve's periphery. Ankur Bhandari (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ankur Bhandari Specifically this is for the Bengal tiger in Rajasthan. Leo1pard (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why I prefer two images in the lead

Apart from the issue of subspecies, tigers can be essentially grouped into two geographical types: the Mainland Eurasian tiger and Sunda tiger. Also, this was to make it more like other articles which feature different species or subspecies in their lead-photographs, and I think that that picture of the Sumatran tiger is quite good. Leo1pard (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It would certainly be good to have a definitive image in the lead section, though I can't recommend the use of two images. The current image is not all that "definitive" either. Seems like we should have a single "iconic" image of a tiger here, of whatever subspecies! Everyone is going to know what a tiger is, so what we need is an image that reiterates the fact that, "Yep that is a tiger alright!" A loose noose (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Largest subspecies?

Following the text, I have marked the Siberian as the largest subspecies and the Bengal as the second largest (in terms of pounds/ kg). However, the text itself states that the Bengal is actually the larger, without giving weights that show this. Which species is actually the larger species? Can anyone clarify for us? Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A loose noose It is like this, as of 2017, Bengal and Siberian tigers are considered to belong to the Mainland Asian subspecies (Panthera tigris tigris) of the tiger, and though the Siberian tiger is the largest population of the tiger in captivity, but at least on average, the Bengal tiger is the heaviest in the wilderness, according to the given sources. The average weight of wild males was reportedly 176.4 kilograms (388.9 lb) for the Siberian tiger, and 196 kilograms (432.1 lb) for the Bengal tiger. The weight of 221 kilograms (487 lb) measured for the Bengal tiger in Chitwan National Park, Nepal, excluded any content in the stomach. That said, on average in the wilderness, the Bengal tiger appears to be the heaviest of living tigers, though it should be noted that tigers in Bengali Sundarbans can be much smaller than other Bengal tigers. The calculated average for male Sundarbans tigers was only 126 kilograms (278 lb). These tigers were deemed to have been 'frail', and without them, the average for the Bengal tiger would have been calculated as 208 kilograms (459 lb).

• Mazák said that male Bengal tigers weighed 180–258 kg (397–569 pounds). The heaviest wild tiger on record was a northern Indian individual, which was slain by David Hassinger in 1967, and weighed 388.7 kg (857 lb) after eating a buffalo calf, without which it would have likely weighed at least 324 kilograms (714 lb). This record was disputed by Brakefield (1993) and Nyhus and Tilson (2010).
• Amur tigers weighed 180–306 kg (397–675 pounds). The largest individual in the wilderness was a Manchurian which was killed in 1943, and was believed by Jankovskij not to weigh less than about 300 kg (660 pounds) (Mazák, 1981). An unconfirmed report tells of a male tiger which was shot in the Sikhote-Alin Mountain Range in 1950, and weighed 384 kg (847 lb). In the past, wild Siberian tigers had been bigger and lived longer, according to Hepter and Sludskii. The largest captive tiger, which was named 'Jaipur', weighed 465 kg (1,025 lb).

Additionally, even in skull length, the Bengal tiger rivals the Amur tiger overall:

• Skulls of male and female Bengal tigers from India and Nepal respectively measured 351 ± 2.5 mm (13.819 ± 0.098 in) (n = 37) and 293 ± 2.4 mm (11.535 ± 0.094 in) (n = 23) at maximum. Towards the end of January in 1927, Sir John Prescott Hewett (Page 180) shot a large tiger in the area of Nagina in northern India. Its skull was measured to have an "over the bone" length of 16.25 in (413 mm), breadth of 9.875 in (250.8 mm) across the zygomatic arches, and 'cleaned' weight of 4 lb 14 oz (2.2 kg).
• Skulls of male Amur tigers usually measured 331.0–383.0 mm (13.03–15.08 in) at maximum, 291.0–342.0 mm (11.46–13.46 in) in condylobasal length, and 220.0–268.0 mm (8.66–10.55 in) in zygomatic width. Skulls of Amur tigresses measured 279.7–310.2 mm (11.01–12.21 in), 252.2–273.4 mm (9.93–10.76 in) in condylobasal length, and 190.0–203.6 mm (7.48–8.02 in) in zygomatic width. A preserved skull in Harbin had a maximum length of 400.0 mm (15.75 in) and zygomatic width of 280.0 mm (11.02 in) (Baikov et al., 1925). Another Manchurian skull had a length of 406.0 mm (15.98 in). Leo1pard (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And I thought I had asked a fairly simple question. Holy moly. I guess the answer is, "It depends"! A loose noose (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but a problem is that even certain experts don't always understand that it's not as simple as they might think, and what I am giving you is a result of years of people like me working on subjects like this, this is not something that I would manage to understand in a day, and if you find even this comparison of two formerly recognised subspecies of tigers to be much more complicated than you thought it was, then please don't think that comparing the tiger with another cat species, which people like to compare the tiger with, to such an extent that I hope that I don't even have to name it, is simple. Leo1pard (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2018

Please change the link address of citation 77 in References section from http://tigers.panda.org/wp-content/uploads/Background-Document-Wild-Tiger-Status-2016.pdf/ to http://tigers.panda.org/wp-content/uploads/Background-Document-Wild-Tiger-Status-2016.pdf because it will resolve the permanent dead link. Rsaxena2008 (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Done.   Jts1882 | talk  15:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Traditional Medicine

I added a "see also" template to the page I'm creating that concerns the wine obtained by the bones of tigers. DD99LIUC (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Scientific names

Please see this. Leo1pard (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

shaved tigers

"A tiger's coat pattern is still visible when it is shaved." Proof? Photographs would be nice. User:ScotXW^t@lk 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dispute on tiger subspecies, including amongst members of the Cat Specialist Group

As mentioned by Tijkil, the classification of tigers subspecies into only 2, comprising only the Mainland Asian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) and the Sunda Island tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica) has not been accepted by all scientists and taxonomists, including Luo and Driscoll, who happen to be members of the Cat Specialist Group, so I reworded the contradictory paragraphs like this:

A 2018 study using a whole-genome sequencing approach, involving Luo and Driscoll, supported six monophyletic clades, which correspond to distinct subspecies. This was even though in 2017, the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group, including Luo and Driscoll, revised felid taxonomy and recognized the tiger populations in continental Asia as P. t. tigris, and those in the Sunda Islands as P. t. sondaica.

Leo1pard (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC); edited 05:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the difficulty of defining a subspecies there will rarely be universal agreement on the divisions. We need to use taxonomic sources and secondary sources for determining the taxonomy use. The IUCN SCG settled on two and discusses the general disagreement Luo and Driscoll. The ASM mammalian diversity database has also followed the SCG and used two. The new study provides further evidence that the authors use to argue for six subspecies, but their conclusion depends on the interpretation and definitions used. You could use their tree to support two subspecies, with the Sunda tiger sister to the remainder, based on the tree topology and the greater gene flow between continental groups. They chose the six phylogeographic groups that correspond to the traditional subspecies (which would be my preference), but they could also have opted for three (Bengal seperate) or four. Lumping and splitting is never a precise science and the decision often rests on other considerations, e.g. conservation. The law in some jurisdictions makes conservation easier if the conservation unit is a defined subspecies, while some people trying to conserve tiger populations want to be able to cross-breed groups to increase genetic diversity of particular populations.

I think the current treatment on Wikipedia is appropriate, use the two subspecies based on secondary taxonomic sources, but keeping the articles on the traditional subspecies as they form clearly defined phylogeographic groups, which might yet be raised to subspecies again. The Liu et al (2018) paper certainly needs to be used in the articles to make the case that the number of subspecies is still a matter for debate.   Jts1882 | talk  13:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882:If you were to ask most scientists or people who work with the animals, or if you go to breeding facilities and so on and ask them about tiger sub species, they will always tell you there is the siberian, bengal, and so on - 6 sub species, and may even tell you the differences between them. It is widely accepted and known everywhere that there are 6 sub species of tigers. In my opinion i think wikipedia should reflect this. Its very political and clearly this sub species thing isnt actually about exact science but rather purposely mixing the subspecies or not for conservation, a choice between the two.

No scientist has talked yet about the 2018 study. I posted a quote in another discussion tab that this new study and how the scientist says it is a genome wide genetic study (which has never been done before) and shows the most solid evidence of subspecies using genetics. Tijkil (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Science moves on and things change. The validity of the traditional susbpecies has been challenged as it was based on limited morphological evidence, often based on a few skins (see Kitchener 1999). The cat taxonomy was revised by an IUCN group of experts, a whos who of cat experts, and they decided on two subspecies for tiger, although they noted there were disagreements in their discussion. The ASM mammalian database has followed this revised classification. I should add that this database is run by the ASM committee that previous oversaw MSW and, in the absence of the 4th edition, can be considered its successor. What we put in Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, preferably secondary ones, and the two most recent secondary sources say two subspecies. Now the 2018 study makes an extremely convincing case for six phylogeographic tiger subtypes, which correspond to the traditional susbpecies, but it isn't inconsistent with two either. We must wait for reliable secondary sources (perhaps the increasingly mythical MSW4) before we can make a change. The articles for Bengal and Siberian tiger still exist for the phylogeographic groups and the only difference is what the group is called. If these were proposed for deletion I would oppose it strongly.   Jts1882 | talk  07:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Poor Lead

This lead is not concise, it goes into cubbing. Why is this info relevant to the lead. For example why talk about cubbing before life expectancy. Why discuss details about what they eat in the lead? WP:LEAD. Means a more concise is needed. --169.0.4.200 (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Map

The range map purports to represent “Tiger's historical range in about 1850 (pale yellow) and in 2006 (in green)”, yet the range west of the Indian subcontinent is entirely omitted. The article however states that Caspian Tiger only went extinct in the 1970s. Thus the map is incorrect. It should either be deleted, replaced with a correct map, or correctly labelled as “Tiger's historical range in about 1850 (pale yellow) not including Caspian Tiger subspecies,...”. Nakashchit (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The historic Caspian range is shown in the small globe inset (top right). There is no need for a higher resolution map showing current range as it is extinct.   Jts1882 | talk  08:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo of tigers play-fighting

Proposed photo, Image:Flying Princess (cropped).jpg

Hello. I noticed the Social and daily activities section has two photographs and a video of a tiger swimming, but no photographs of tigers play-fighting with each other. What do editors think of replacing the "A Siberian tiger swimming at Wuppertal Zoo" photo with this one ("Image:Flying Princess (cropped).jpg")? – Levivich 17:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Great image, thanks for your note!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Extinct in Laos

So says this source, but I'm not sure if it's RS. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

The current lead image is not ideal. It only shows the front of a tiger and doesn't give a good idea of the animal's hefty girth (they aren't skinny like many other cats), nor does it reveal much of the animal's characteristic stripes. Here are some other images that I think would work better.

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F
• 
  G
• 
  H
• 
  I

Note that I haven't reviewed all the tiger images on Commons, as they are buried behind endless subcategories. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I vote for A or D. Kaldari (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the picture in A best as well. But is it the best choice for the taxobox, given the snowy background. It's not typical tiger territory. E might be better to show the full tiger in a more typical habitat. One other consideration is that the taxobox image was a featured image. If removed from the taxobox, I think it should be placed somewhere else in the article. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Siberian tigers (the kind shown in image A) are actually native to areas with snow, mostly in the Siberian taiga. Of course there aren't many humans there to photograph them, so you don't see many photos of tigers in snow. Regarding the existing featured image, it wasn't even in this article when it was featured, so it wouldn't be in danger of losing it's featured status. That said, it might be nice to keep in the article elsewhere. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I found one more, taken in Nagarhole NP. And prefer one taken in the wild: either D, F, or G. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: B was also taken in the wild, FYI. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I nominated H. It shows a side view and is also a featured quality image. Kaldari? Jts1882? BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A cropped version of that image (I) was just promoted to featured image on English Wikipedia. Seems like it would be a good image for the infobox here. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me. Though I still like D better because of the ambient light. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion when I added my image to the infobox on 6 March. User:LittleJerry reverted that edit and has refused to respond, just deleting the post I made on his talk page. I posted there again yesterday and I was told to come here. I see User:LittleJerry has been editing this article for some time, so could have responded right away. My image (I) is now an FP and is in the infobox for Bengal Tiger. The debate you are having above seems mature and responsible; it's just a shame that User:LittleJerry (who dosen't understand the purpose of infobox images) does not respect other users. I suggest, the same pair of images used for Bengal Tiger, could be used here, showing a male and a female side on. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd support image I. If we are going to show a male and female tiger then I think it would be better to show different "subspecies" or to show a side on and front on image. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of showing images of different subspecies much better than showing male + female. Alas, the choice of good images of Sumatran tiger is much more limited than of mainland tiger. This may be good: File:Sumatratiger-004.jpg, as it shows the ruff. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Charlesjsharp, you should not engage in personal attacks. No one is obligated to debating with you on their personal talk page when an article page is more appropriate. Anyhow, I didn't realize the other image was also a featured image. LittleJerry (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The edit war over "largest" or "one of the largest" big cats... discuss

I see there is a slow edit war carrying on in this article over whether tigers should be billed as "Largest species of the cat family" or "One of the largest species of the cat family" (particularly in the article's short description). I think both statements are correct depending on how you view the data, so I suggest a discussion take place and a consensus be reached for how it is worded in the article (before the edit war escalates).

I did some reading and discovered that tigers CAN be larger than lions, but not all of them are. The tiger subspecies have a wider range of size than lions do, with the Siberian tiger being larger than all of the lions, and the Sumatran tiger being smaller than all of the lions. List of largest cats is a good starting point.

If I were to lump all tigers together (such as the short description for the article Tiger), I would say that "one of the largest species of the cat family" would be more correct.

Discuss please.

Normal Op (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification desired on length.

Is it from snout to tip of tail, to anus? How long is the tail? It's kind of hard to get a mental handle on the physical scale of the animal when a the difference between the measurements could mean a few feet or a meter of animal. Oxylepy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Circus acts and tigers

It is simply an observation on my part as I only saw it on television. It is obvious that tigers and dogs are fairly similar in build and to some extent behavior. Dogs are simply better-behaved. Dogs and tigers for their size are similarly powerful... and trainable.

I have noticed that the dogs and tigers performed essentially the same acts. The dogs performed, so it seemed, for comic effect while the tigers did the same to awe the people attending the circus. Pbrower2a (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Human deaths from tigers

Human deaths by elephants is far greater than by tigers. The article erroneously states the opposite. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191120-the-problem-of-indias-man-eating-tigers#:~:text=Attacks%20are%20relatively%20rare%2C%20with,killed%20each%20year%20by%20elephants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavogt (talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The only twp large carnivores that regularly have humans as prey are the salt-water crocodile and the Nile crocodile. Although any medium-to-large predator poses the danger of the predator's tools, Man is in far greater danger from such giant herbivores as elephant, hippos, moose, and buffalo because such animals fear us as predators. Pbrower2a (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

100,000 tigers in 1900 claim

Can somebody provide a reliable source for this claim? The BBC News article postdates the addition of this passage of the article (which was in 2006), and so therefore could potentially be WP:CITOGENESIS. That leaves Big Cat Rescue as the source of the claim, which was the only one cited for the claim in the 2012 version. Big Cat Rescue is a WP:SPS and provides no source for the claim, and therefore I don't think it cannot be considered a WP:Reliable source. Are there any better estimates out there or should the passage be removed entirely? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have pre-emtively removed the passage, pending a more reliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree to removing this claim, and do not recall any reliable source for it. Nobody estimated tiger populations anywhere 120 years ago. And still in the 1990s, the methods available for counting or 'censusing' were criticized for not being reliable and accurate. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The WWF seem to use the number quite often (e.g. here) and they probably get it from the Global Tiger Recovery Plan. This pdf mentions the 100,000 on p9. The pdf was created in November 2010, which was when the meeting to launch the plan took place. It don't give a source for the number or an explanation for how it was derived, but mentions a supporting Annex doument. It's an official programme of 13 governments and many conservation agencies, so I think that makes it a valid source for Wikipedia purposes; it is not for us to question its methods.

Incidentally, the WWF is now using Continental Tiger as the common name (here). —  Jts1882 | talk  09:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this up !! Still, I think this is a wild guess(timate), using rule of thumb and extrapolating from the possibly available habitat at the time and population density in some of today's protected areas. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometime in the late 1970s, somebody came up with a similar figure for Leopards in Africa, also extrapolated from one, at most a couple of study areas. And this person was not taken seriously. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No question it is a general order of magnitude estimate rather than a survey, but it will have some basis (e.g. your suggested method). As it is a reliable source I think its better to include the number (with appropriate wording) than exclude it. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I can clarify when the wording was originally added to the article, I initally assumed it was 2009 because of the citation note, however that turned out to be incorrect. It was originally added uncited on the 21 of July 2006 by Sahands diff, with the wording being "a century ago" rather than the date 1900. Later revisions in 2006 cited the sentence to the IUCN example archive. It's totally possible that all refs for this claim are citogenesis from Wikipedia, and a source for the claim must be found prior to the 21 of July 2006 or it should not be included at all. EDIT:clear evidence found of the claim being used significantly prior to 2006, see below. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

An archive of the IUCN link from 2008 provides no evidence for the claim, and may have only been used as a citation for contemporary numbers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A google search for 100,000 and tiger for entries prior to the 21 of July 2006 does provide several instances of the 100,000 claim, including a BBC article from 1999 "...a century ago there were probably 100,000 or more." and a Guardian article from 2000 "As recently as the start of the last century, there were some 100,000 tigers in the wild.", among others but all of these claims are uncited. The earliest official source I could find is this CITES article from 2001 "From a population of over 100,000 in the 19th century...", but the claim is still uncited. This may mean that CITES is the originator of the claim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As an addendum, another article from The Independent also from early 1999 "A century ago there may have been 100,000 tigers in the forests and grasslands of their huge range across Asia from the Caspian Sea to Bali in Indonesia" that appears to be on the same topic as the BBC article, which is about a CITES committee.

This earlier CITES document from 1999 contains another variation: "It is estimated that in the 1800s over 100,000 tigers roamed a variety of habitats in Asia." Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Other potential earlier instances. From the university page of a Colby College faculty member "At the turn of the century, roughly 100,000 of these beautiful felines roamed the area from Turkey to Eastern-Russia and as far down as the Indonesian Islands.", cited to a 1997 article in Geographical Magazine. And this blurb for the 1988 first edition of Tigers of the World "In the last 50 years the tiger population in Asia has plummeted from 100,000 to about 5,000.". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've managed to find a link to a scan of the January 1997 issue of Geographical Magazine, which contains the said article, but it's paywalled unfortunately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems that all of the sources that you found just SPECULATED about numbers, but none referred to WHO came up with this speculation initially. So even if some of these sources are considered reliable by wikipedia standard, this figure is far from being reliable but is just a wild guess. And a good example for circular reporting of a figure until even we are tricked into thinking it reliable. :):):) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors we can speculate all we want, but we have to rely on sources. A number of reliable sources say 100,000 so we should include it. A little common sense also says if has to be correct to the order of magnitude. There must have been more than 10,000 tigers when humans occupied so much less land and there can't have been anywhere near a million (they need too much territory). So it doesn't matter if the actual number was 60,000 or 300,000, the 100,000 gives an appropriate indication of the decline in numbers. This justification doesn't matter either, we should follow what the sources say. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think if the claim is going to be readded to the article, It should be attributed to CITES, as all of the sources that use the figure prior to 2000 (BBC and Independent articles, alongside the 1999 CITES pdf) are directly related to the organization. Preferably it should be cited to the 1999 document, which is the earliest official source of the figure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've managed to find an even earlier reference to the number Implementation and Enforcement of Cites: An Assessment of Tiger and Rhinoceros Conservation Policy in Asia from 1995: "Tiger populations have plummeted from 100,000 to 5,000 animals during the past half century due in part to hunting, loss of habitat, and depletion of food sources." which is the same wording as the Tigers of The World blurb. This claim is cited to "Eric Sievers, Amur Tigers on the Verge of Extinction (unpublished report on file with The Sacred Earth Network)." Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This article Threats to Unique Wildlife Through Indian Habitat Destruction from 1986 identifies Guy Mountfort as the probable ultimate source of the number:

In 1981 Mountfort wrote (p. 87): "So a species that had once dominated Asia and of which probably 100,000 still remained in 1930 had in [less than 50] years been reduced by Man to about 5,000 individuals scattered in small groups over an area larger than the whole of Europe. ..."

This is cited to the 1981 Book Saving the Tiger by G. Mountfort, case closed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Like BhagyaMani suggested, the number appears to have been a guesstimate without a statistical basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for further digging. I suspected all along that this figure is a fund-raiser figure. In view of Mountfort being one of the WWF founders AND an advertising professional, this indeed makes sense now. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I wonder whether someone in the 1930s had come up with this figure already? Because Mountfort wrote: "In 1930 it was conceived that ..." So he may not be the 'inventor' of this figure. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard Perry in his book The World of the Tiger (1964) claimed that : "in the last century in India more than a hundred thousand tigers were killed" and quoted figures of 1,300 to 2,000 victims annually in the 1860s, and 1,000 to 1,600 in the 1930s. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

So it very much looks like that this figure of 100,000 was originally NOT an estimate for global tiger population by 1900, but ONLY a conjectured guesstimate of tigers killed in India between the 1860s and 1930s. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Subspecies

Not all the subspecies are in the ITIS database (https://www.itis.gov). Should we limit the subspecies to those in the database? -- User:Pakbelang (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2020 (Malaysia Standard Time)

It's irrelevant whether any of the 2 subspecies are or are not in the ITIS database. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

ITIS is based on MSW3, which was published in 2005 and had a cutoff for new data about a year or so earlier. The Malaysian subspecies was recognised after this date. Since then there has been a major taxonomic revision of the Felidae by the IUCN Specialist Cat Group, which reduced the number of tiger subspecies to two. This is the source use for all English Wikipedia article on extant Felidae. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

In the section "Hunting and diet", the line that states "If the prey catches senses the tiger's presence before this, the tiger usually abandons the hunt rather than chase prey or battle it head-on." should be changed to "If the prey senses the tiger's presence before this, the tiger usually abandons the hunt rather than chase prey or battle it head-on." The word "catches" doesn't make sense in this article. Soiledhalo (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done —  Jts1882 | talk  13:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

Tigers unlike most cats will swim in river in there habitat. Apartell26 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but this is already covered under Tiger#Social_and_daily_activities. Please provide a reference with any further edit requests. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Please remove

make captive breeding programmes and future rewilding of zoo-born tigers easier.

and add

simplify captive breeding programmes and future rewilding of zoo-born tigers.

"Make easier" isn't good because the two words of this phrase are separated by eight other words, and there's no grammatical way to get them closer to each other. 173.71.177.75 (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree a change is required, but I'm not sure the suggested change goes far enough. The full sentence about the new subspecies proposal is:

One conservation specialist welcomed this proposal as it would make captive breeding programmes and future rewilding of zoo-born tigers easier.

It seems to me that it isn't making captive breeding programmes easier or simpler, but rather changing them in a way that will help future rewilding efforts. It will allowing breeding with more genetic diversity. How about something like

One conservation specialist welcomed this proposal as it would make conservation easier by increasing the stock of tigers eligible for breeding and rewilding programs.

Any other suggestions? —  Jts1882 | talk  11:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes : remove this commentary altogether from this paragraph; instead add this to the section External links. Because this commentary does not contribute a bit to clarify the context of this section's heading, namely subspecies. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Terasail^[✉] 11:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Under mask (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

tigers are one of the biggest cats in the world and they love to swim

Thanks for your input. Both of these facts are already included in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

.Tigers reproduce sexually, Female and male are both polygamous. They are a specie representative of the k-selected reproductive strategy, iteroparous and have a simple life cycle . It is estimated that there are around 5,000 captive tigers in the US, more than the approximately 3,900 remaining in the wild. A vast majority of these captive tigers are privately owned and living in people’s backyards, roadside attractions, and private breeding facilities. Only an estimated 6% of the US captive tiger population resides in zoos and other facilities accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (Wildlife.org) Luque1312 (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 16:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

Please add to the following, to the end of the "Conservation" section.
"In 2021 in Thailand, one tiger park got its second one-month closure order (for 2021), according to Bangkok Post; furthermore Thai law permits that the government can order the permanent closure when a park gets two two-month bans over a 12-month period.
Ref:Tiger park set for permanent closure. Bangkok Post. Accessed 10 March 2021. 89.8.180.244 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Even better, instead please add:

In 2021 in Thailand, one tiger park got its second one-month closure order (for 2021), "after DNA tests showed that two of its tiger cubs were not born in captivity after all", according to Bangkok Post; furthermore Thai law permits that the government can order the permanent closure when a park gets two two-month bans over a 12-month period. 89.8.122.69 (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Subspecies number

As a note, a quick search (and a longer one) of recent scientific papers shows that the two-subspecies scheme has been largely ignored and rejected by researchers. Even the IUCN Redlist still lists nine subspecies [1]. The vast majority of articles found on Google Scholar on tiger subspecies since 2017 still consider there to be nine subspecies [2]. However, the current subspecies section of this article is heavily biased in favor of that view. This should probably be changed across the subspecies articles (yes, all nine) to either in favor of the nine-subspecies view, or at least a more neutral one that does not give undue weight to a little-supported proposal. Good day, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I read some of the studies. Some say 4 subspecies, others say 7, and the one we seem to use [3] says 2. Seems this cat's taxonomy is a mess right now. I think we should come to a consensus as to which sources to follow. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey SilverTiger12: they are all junior synonyms, so when authors use them does not necessarily mean that they reject the 2017 revision by the Cat SG's task force, unless they explicitly write so. But if their article/s are about other issues than taxonomy, then you must not understand this as a rejection; there are still authors and journal editors who are simply not aware of the revision. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The IUCN assessments predate the taxonomy revision by the IUCN Specialist Cat Group. Given the group revising the taxonomy operates under IUCN auspices, it would be extremely surprising if new IUCN assessments didn't follow it. I've yet to see any new assessments (are there any?) and I assume they will make population assessments (like for the West African lion). Secondly, papers published in 2017-2019 will probably have been written before the revision was published. Thirdly, some people will disagree with the assessment and continue to prefer multiple subspecies. One of the authors of the taxonomy revision disagrees with the tiger assessment. Wikipedia needs to choose one preferred system for consistency and the IUCN Cat SG is the best available. Alternative points of view should, as always, be noted in the article. But as mentioned above, care should be made to distinguish between taxonomy articles actively recognising the subspecies and those articles on other scientific aspects passively using a traditional name. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The last common ancestor of all tigers only lived a bit over 100,000 years ago, very recent in evolutionary terms. Ultimately the controversy over the number of subspecies is mostly semantics and should be de-emphasised in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Re Jts1882's question are there any? : not yet, and less than a handful in process or under review. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any links for those under review? I would love to read those over Ddum5347 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead image again

A year ago the current image was agreed upon for the taxbox. I feel like we should reconsider in light of the discussions on the leopard and jagaur lead images. Candidates for these articles were rejected based on them showing disruptive coloration and I feel the current tiger image has the same problem, the tiger doesn't pop out. I would like to suggest File:Rajaram, Kanha Tiger, Young one.jpg as the new lead. LittleJerry (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

pinging Kaldari, Jts1882, BhagyaMani, Charlesjsharp, SilverTiger12 and Tribe of Tiger.

Ooh, that's a gorgeous image. However, the tiger image in the taxobox currently shows the build and pattern of the tiger more fully than the one you are proposing. It also doesn't really have a problem with disruptive coloration. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I also think that the current one is perfect for the taxobox, as it shows a tiger from the side. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the current one could be cropped tighter, as the tiger fills less than half of the frame. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: can we reconsider this image? File:Royal Bengal Tiger at Kanha National Park.jpg -- Some1 ^{talk} 16:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That would have to be my least favourite of the three, due to the strangely contorted pose. Either the current one or the OP's replacement (very nice indeed) would be fine by me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Elmidae: what if we use the lead image here in the tiger article, and use a different image there? -- Some1 ^{talk} 20:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with the present img? And what is your rationale for contesting an 8 month old consensus? – BhagyaMani (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: is there anything that prohibits me from doing this? no! in this case, your opinion above is like a broken calculator, it doesnt count! -- Some1 ^{talk} 10:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is against changing the lede image. Also, BhagyaMani's opinion does, in fact, count, regardless of whether or not you like it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: is there something stopping me from commenting here even if a year were to pass? I, in the most polite way possible for me to say it, dont know why you guys got so sensitive by me commenting here and almost started questioning my rationale. Of course I can judge right!!! And I take wikipeda as a hobby since im suffering a 7 month old knee injury, and not a way of life like some do here, meanwhile, trying not to break any rule too. You'll never hear me once i heal from this. Have a good one, sir. -- Some1 ^{talk} 21:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current picture and why do you think the one you proposed is better? LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So you want us to reconsider and agree because of your knee? – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: of course no! all im saying is, you guys take it serious, while I play around with images without making the article look dumb but the other way around. -- Some1 ^{talk} 09:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Tiger synonyms

YorkshireExpat posted this on my talk page: Please could you provide an explanation for reverting my change at Tiger. The synonyms I have provided were correctly formatted, and referenced from, what I consider to be, a reputable source. The previous synonyms presented were not referenced, and you did not provide a reference for the change you made, which I have since provided for you, albeit from a potentially less reputable source (but not unreputable). YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

As ALREADY explained in my 2 edit summaries : a SUBspecific name, i.e. a TRInomial is NOT a synonym for a BInomial name, i.e. a name of a species. Get familiar with the meaning of terms BEFORE you use them. – BhagyaMani (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's completely possible for a trinomial to be a synonym of a binomial. Please take a look here, especially at on page 4 at section II.2.A(b). Subspecies Names. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

All the names in your list represent SUBspecies names. They do not meet criterion 1 of this section II.2.A(b) : ... representative of the subject species NOR criterion 2 : ... junior synonym of a recognized subspecies. And they are listed already on the relevant pages about tiger subspecies and populations. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, SilverTiger12, Jts1882, and Elmidae: please comment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. Firstly, is the synonyms list in the taxobox meant to provide a comprehensive list or just common ones the reader might have come across. I lean towards the latter when the list is long, although not too strongly if the list is collapsed. Then, secondly, what to put in it.

I agree that it's possible for a trinomial to be a synonym of a binomial. This is common following species splits. In this case, though, I think most of those trinomial synonyms belong as synonyms of the subspecies. For instance, according to MSW3, longipilis and styani are synonyms of altaica and amoyensis, respectively, which following the subspecies reassessment would all be synonyms of Panthera tigris tigris. The binomials seems more useful here for the species article. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Trinomials can be synonyms of binomials under the ICZN; that is part of the principle of coordination. Under the botanical code, synonyms technically should always be at the same rank as the accepted name. However, Wikipedia is not Wikispecies. Wikipedia redirects should target the subject that a reader is searching for, not necessarily the technically accepted name under the nomenclatural codes. So, if a former monotypic family is now lumped into a polytypic family, it is appropriate for that family name to (continue to) redirect to the genus, rather than the family name that is accepted (botanical example; Lactoridaceae is technically a synonym of Aristolochiaceae, but redirects to Lactoris, as that article contains the content that would be relevant to a reader searching for Lactoridaceae).

In the case here, I think any trinomials that are already listed as synonyms in articles for accepted/valid tiger subspecies need not also be listed in the article for the tiger species. Plantdrew (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation! – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Plantdrew: and @Jts1882:. My issue here was originally that the synonyms presented were not referenced, so i went and found a reference, which was not entirely straightforward. I have now returned the list of synonyms that was originally presented, with what I hope @BhagyaMani: judges is a respectable reference. When we alter the information away from what a reference presents, I feel we are sailing close to the wind on WP:SYN. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Map

The map in the infobox misspells "kilometers". Art LaPella (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. CMD (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)