Remove this ad

Lead

Jan 25 14 4:04 AM

Tags : :

New evidence suggests that this artist, that is only an amateur like any of us, is biased toward lions and is unreliable on the tiger data and its interpretations. This topic will unveil this issue.

 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Jan 25 14 4:05 AM

At this moment, the artist Roman Uchytel made one of the best paleontological reconstructions in the web, with some of the best photomontages available.

 

However, some people, including me, have questioned his results and interpretations of the data, especially in the size issue of several species.

 

When we look his tiger images, he made an excellent work, but in a previous moment, he was confused on the habitat of the Ngandong tiger and the Wanhsien tiger, showing that he had no clue about those specimens, however he take the liberty to promote body sizes and weights with apparent no evidence.

 

Check that we have made two large topics on AVA and this forum (almoust 60 pages overall) and with several data and scientific formulas we finally concluded that the Ngandong tiger weighed between 370 – 410 kg (depending of the method), however he still quote the figure of 350 kg with no apparent source or study to backup that figure.

Check it: http://prehistoric-fauna.com/Ngandong-tiger

 

Besides, the weight of “up to 450 kg” for Panthera spelaea fossilis is not based in any document, apart from the speculations in the post of the other biased Russian lion fans that continue degrading the tiger in his forum.

Check it: http://prehistoric-fauna.com/panthera-leo-fossilis

 

The straw that broke the camel was this image:

image

Here is the page: http://prehistoric.ucoz.ru/publ/bestiary/lion_and_tiger_sizes/2-1-0-288

 

Where he gets his data, from Boldchamp or Asad (the worst biased lion fans ever)??? This image is INCORRECT AND MISLEADING!!! Let’s reveal the mistakes on this image.

 

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Jan 25 14 4:07 AM

1. Lion skull:

He quotes that the longest lion skull was of 432 mm, however this figure came from Rowland Wards Records of Big game (edition of 1914), here is the image:

image

 

Evidently as it is, this skull is from the section “Owners measurements”, which means that Rowland Ward and his team don’t even reviewed the figure and it is highly possible that this was just an exaggeration.

 

The largest African lion skull verified by scientists was of 419 mm, check this image:

image

The document is this: Adrian Marciszak, Charles Schouwenburg and Robert Darga. (2013) Decreasing size process in the cave (Pleistocene) lion Panthera spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810) evolution.

 

 

2. Tiger skull:

On the tiger side, he quotes the longest skull at 378 mm, my question is, WHERE IS THE 383 mm skull of Mazák???? Here is the image:

image

 

This is rubbish, he directly ignored this Amur tiger skull, even when it is clearly mentioned that it was measured by Mazák himself!!! Besides he directly ignored the record skull of 406 mm verified by Mazák and the 400 skull measured by Baikov:

 

a. Skull of 406 mm, verified by Mazák:

image

 

b. Skull of 400 mm, measured by Baikov:

image

Source http://sixote-alin.ru/books/baikov/he1.html

 

Apart from that, there are several records of Bengal tiger skulls longer than 380 mm.

 

c. Bengal skull of 386 mm, measured by Sterndale:

image

 

d. Bengal skull of 381 mm, reported by Charles McDougal in Nepal:

image

Source: http://books.google.com.gt/books?ei=6-_iUrvNKIzMsQTYuYLwAg&hl=es&id=Q-EHAQAAMAAJ&dq=face+of+the+tiger+mcdougal&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=skull

 

And there are several more skulls of Bengal tigers from first hand sources.

 

Finally, if Roman Uchytel included the lion skull of 432 mm from a second hand source,then why he don’t included the true record skull of 413 mm of a large Bengal tiger reported by John Hewett (first hand source)??? Here is the image:

image

 

At the light of this evidence, it is obvious that there is something fishy here. I firmly believe that Roman Uchytel and his Russian group DO know all this data (they normally read the post in the Premiere League), however he (or they) decided to manipulate the data and show only what they want.

 

Is disturbing, but the obvious conclusion is that in the skulls issue, Roman Uchytel is completely wrong.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Jan 25 14 4:08 AM

3. On the lion size:

This part is even more disturbing. Roman quotes a maximum total length of 360 cm for the lion!!! This size is IMPOSSIBLE for a modern lion. There is NOT A SINGLE RELIABLE RECORD of a lion of this length. The longest lion recorded in Guinness was of about 340 cm and it was NOT measured between pegs (it just says “accurately measured, it doesn’t state the method, and is 100% certain that it was measured over the curve).

 

The longest lion measured between pegs is a big male of 310 cm in Northern Rhodesia, check the image:

image

 

From about 150 specimens (50 large males) recorded by Stevenson Hamilton, from South Africa, the longest male measured almost 300 cm in total length, here is the image:

image

 

Finally, this table made by me, shows all the available records of male lions from East Africa, and the longest one was of 301 cm:

image

 

I ask again, were he got the figure of 360 cm??? Besides, it is clear that the shoulder height of 123 cm is NOT a standing height. The first figure of c.120 cm came from Smuts et al. (1980), however this is not a standing height but from the shoulder to the tip of the paw, check the image:

image

image

 

The tallest lion actually measured between pegs and from the shoulder to the wrist (which is about the same than the standing height) was of 114 cm (3 ft 9 in) and was reported by Pitman, here is the image:

image

image

Check that the lion of 4 ft 3 in is UNRELIABLE according with the document.

 

Besides, the lion of “over 750 lb” is also unreliable and probably just a huge exaggeration:

image

 

As we can see, the longest lion (310 cm) and the tallest specimen (114 cm) are completely different than the exaggerated figures in Uchytel’s image.

 

Finally, in the body mass department, he quotes the maximum figure of 313 kg, which came from Guinness, however why he don’t put the scientific record, 260 kg from Etosha - 240 kg empty belly according with Dr Hu Berry (who capture the specimen) also in his image? Again, inaccuracy is part of the problem.

 

Finally, the average of 181 kg is exaggerated, as it represents only the population of Southern Africa; East African lions weigh less than 175 kg on average (check my previous image on those specimens). Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) stated an average of 170 kg for the entire species, a figure corroborated by peter and me. However, it is doubtful if they included the lions from India and those from West Africa, which reduce the average figure significantly.

 

Here is the REAL heaviest lion on record, verified by scientists in the field:

image

 

A direct confirmation, better……impossible.

 

 

4. On the tiger size:

He quotes the maximum total length of the tiger at 330 cm, which obviously came from Mazák (1981) and put more weight to my assumption than he (Roman) directly ignored the record skull of 383 mm, as both data are in the same document.

 

Latter, he quotes a maximum shoulder height of 115 cm, which is correct; the tallest tiger measured between pegs by Brander was of 112 cm (44 in), check the image:

image

 

Cooch Behar and Mr Shillingford also reported tigers of up to 114 cm measured between pegs. So, the figure of 115 cm seems reliable.

 

It seems that the length and weight of the tiger is correct here, but not its weight. He randomly quotes a maximum of 365 kg, which is a weight that doesn’t figure in any document.

 

The maximum weight recorded and verified in Nepal was of 320 kg, it was vouched by Smythies and corroborated by Dr Charles McDougal, here are several images of it:

image

image

image

 

However, if we follow the same way than Roman, we must include the tiger record of Guinness, and in this case, the maximum weight should be of 389 kg, here is the image:

image

 

So, why he included the maximum lion of Guinness but excluded the tiger? Well, the only plausible answer is that he is a (sorry for the word) a biased lion-fan simple and direct.

 

Check this answer to another poster in his Russian forum:

“"Группу львов иногда теснит группа гиен. Одиночного тигра никогда не теснят волки, а наоборот как раз." - Это что такое? Вот от тебя не ожидал... Это приведет к батлам и срачу.
"
Мозг
тигра как относительно так и абсолютно крупнее львиного" - обсуждали уже. Не известно какой именно отдел мозга крупнее и за что он отвечает.
"
Тигр
в одиночку часто убивает крокодилов" - каких? Не сравнивай нильских кроков с болотными.
"
Крупного
африканского буйвола они мочат прайдом, а тигр в одиночку мочит более крупного гаура." - Ты же сам знаешь, что буйвола может замочить и один лев-самец, но вот подкрасться к нему вряд ли. К тому же кафский буйвол очень агрессивный и способен на взаимовыручку, чего не скажеш о гауре.
"
Вес
самых крупных тигров как в дикой природе так и в зоопарке превышает вес самых крупных львов в природе и в зоопарках." - не доказано. Пока полный паритет.

 

Translated in Google:

"Group of lions sometimes close group of hyenas . Solitary tiger never jostle wolves , but rather just enough. " - What's that? That did not expect from you ... This will lead to battles and srachu .
"The brain as a tiger and is relatively larger than the lion " - have already discussed . It is not known exactly which part of the brain is larger and for which he is responsible .
"Tiger alone often kills crocodiles " - what ? Do not compare Nile CRIC marsh .
"Large African buffalo they urinate Pride , and the tiger alone wets larger gaura . " - You know yourself that buffalo can dunk and one male lion , but sneak up on him hardly. Besides kafsky buffalo very aggressive and capable of mutual aid , which is not true of Gaur .
"The weight of the largest tigers in the wild and in the zoo than the weight of the largest lions in zoos and nature . " - Not proven. Until full parity .”

 

Source: http://forum.zoologist.ru/viewtopic.php?id=3796&p=64

 

He directly attacks all the strong points of the tigers, including that of the size. So, how is possible to believe in a person that directly discard hard evidence about the superiority of the tiger in size and weight, plus his aversion to all the other advantages of the tiger???

 

Now, just like in the lion, he should put the maximum weight recorded in scientific literatures, which for the tiger is of 260 kg empty belly, for details, check this out:

image

 

In the new image of the Ngandong tiger comparison, he actually put the weight of 261 kg like a “Normal maximum” and a figure of 300 kg like an upper one, check it:

image

 

However, in the lion image, he completely change his point of view and instead of using scientific records, he just put the maximum of 272 kg which is a completely discredit and unverifiable figure from Kenya (it is not even quoted by Yamaguchi, the “god” of lion-fans) and quotes (again) the maximum of 313 kg from Guinness. Check the image:

image

 

Why he doesn’t do that with the tiger??? Why we don’t quote the maximum of 389 kg, also from Guinness??? If we are going to quote “random” figures, why he don’t quote the maximum weights of over 600 lb for Bengal tigers, or the original figure of over 270 kg for the heaviest tigers in Nepal, here are the image and the email from Dr Dinerstein himself:

image

image

 

Roman Uchytel should put a normal maximum weight for the tiger of 272 kg and a figure of 320 kg for the upper figure, both verifiable figures.

 

Finally, the average weight of 170 kg for the tiger is more or less accurate. Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) quoted an average of 160 kg for the entire species, a figure that was also corroborated by peter and by me. However, there is the question if they included the estimated weight of 90-100 kg for the Bali tiger and the very low figure of 100-141 kg for the Javanese tiger. These last two figures are underestimations from Mazák, after all, the specimens from Java were even larger than those from Sumatra and we know very well than Sumatran tigers weigh up to 148 kg in scientific records, check the image:

image

 

My conclusion is that both lions and tigers, at the species level, weight about 165 kg “empty belly”, on average. Probably lions are slightly heavier as there is less variation in weight between populations than the tiger.

 

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Jan 25 14 4:14 AM

Conclusion:

Roman Uchytel is without any doubt a great artist and is well represented in the web. Sadly, the dark side of the history is that he is using his page (indirectly) to propagate misinformation about the tiger and promoting the superiority of the lion in all aspects, check this paragraph for example:

Nobody could argue with such a giant, except perhaps awful American lion (Panthera (Leo) atrox), which was even greater.”

Source: http://prehistoric-fauna.com/Ngandong-tiger

 

Are we discussing the size of the tiger or what will happen in a fight??? This part is completely irrelevant and unnecessary, however despite my comments he has not erased this phrase. The funny thing is that Panthera atrox was not even larger than the Ngandong tiger, just about the same size in the BEST case.

 

With this analysis I have found that is very important to promote the correct ideas, because there are several people in the web that post what they believe instead of what the actual data present.

 

It is sad that such a good artist lacks of the necessary scientific accuracy to show the data and go deeper on the documents. I know that he and/or his Russian mates will made a lot of critics about these posts, however I invite them to show they evidence and to prove me wrong, IF they can.

 

I think is time to stop this “tiger-trashing” agenda from these little groups on the web.

 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#7 [url]

Jan 25 14 9:32 AM

Deinotherium wrote:
Roman Uchytel is an artist, not a scientist. So why would you take him that seriously in the first instance?


In fact, this is your point of view and was also mine just before all this (he is just an artist). I search perfection, this because we have going so deeper in our research that we know the hole history back and forward, with all the details and quotes.

 

However, the common person will not put attention to these “little” details. Check the case of some posters in AVA, they just copy paste any random web-page and take it as the “final truth” without checking the source of the data.

 

Sadly this is the case with Roman page. In some Spanish pages were I participate, some people had put Roman pages like evidence of they pro-x animal statements. So, I was forced to show them they mistakes.

 

That is why I decided to show that this particular image is not only incorrect, but is also misleading. Believe me, if you read the Russian forum, they also criticize us, so I am get tired of this and in this occasion, I strike back.

 

So, Roman is a good artist, one of the best, but if he want to be really accurate, he should put the source of his statements and go deeper on the data, this last especially for his Russian friends.

 



Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jan 25 14 10:05 AM

Agreed, his "data" is fabricated or cherry-picked. I do see the problem of casual enthusiasts taking his numbers as fact.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help