ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.de/mambio
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Distinguishing skulls of lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris)
Per Christiansen
Zoological Museum, Department of Vertebrates, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen +, Denmark
Received 27 June 2007; accepted 8 August 2007
Keywords: Lion; Tiger; Skull morphology; Morphometry
Introduction
The lion (Panthera leo L.) and the tiger (Panthera
tigris L.) are the largest extant felids (Nowak 1991;
Sunquist and Sunquist 2002), and their conspicuous and
immediately recognisable external morphology belies
the fact that osteologically, they are very similar. Few
comparative analyses have been done on their skull
morphology, and, accordingly, explicit characters dis-
tinguishing lions and tigers are not presently known.
It used to be held that there were a plethora of
characters distinguishing lion and tiger skulls. Boule
(1906) was the first to formulate a list of morphological
characters supposedly distinguishing the two species.
These were discussed by subsequent authors such as
Pocock (1929, 1930, 1939), Merriam and Stock (1932),
and Mazák (1983), and to some extent Haltenorth
(1936, 1937); (skull morphology) and Kabitzsch (1960);
(dental morphology). These studies indicated that
purported distinguishing characters were often blurred
by inclusion of multiple specimens. Also, the purported
distinguishing characters were often semantically vague,
resulting in interpretative confusion. This has led to a
widespread notion that lion and tiger skulls are
osteologically similar as to be almost identical (e.g.,
Hemmer 1987, Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Indeed,
some authors have even argued that the lion and the
tiger are conspecific (e.g., Hilzheimer 1924).
Tel.: +45 35 32 10 93; fax: +45 35 32 10 10.
E-mail addresses: p2christiansen@zmuc.ku.dk,
p2christiansen@snm.ku.dk (P. Christiansen).
1616-5047/$ - see front matter r 2007 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde. Published by Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2007.08.001
Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera.... Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.mambio.2007.08.001
It is true that easily recognisable characters distin-
guishing singular lions and tigers are frequently blurred
and even obliterated when analysing large samples.
However, their skulls are by no means osteologically
identical, and producing a multivariate analysis which
distinguishes lions from tigers with 100% certainty is
easily accomplished, as shown below (see also Herring-
ton 1987). However, the purpose of this study was to
formulate explicit singular characters that distinguish
lions and tigers with virtual certainty, regardless of size
and sexual differences, thus also facilitating easy
identification of misidentified skulls or skulls of un-
known nature.
Thirty-nine skull and mandibular variables were
measured on high-resolution digital images of 100 tigers
(54 #, 46 ~) and 134 lions (79 #, 55 ~) from the
Natural History Museum, London (BM); Zoological
Museum in Copenhagen (CN); Museum National
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN); Naturhistoriska
riksmuseet, Stockholm (NRM); Naturmuseum Senck-
enberg, Frankfurt (SMF); and Staatliches Museum fûr
Naturkunde, Stuttgart (SMNS); and Museum für
Naturkunde, Berlin (ZMB).
To ensure representative samples, several traditionally
recognised subspecies were included. Four of the
traditionally recognised eight tiger subspecies
(e.g., Mazák 1981, 1996; Seidensticker et al. 1999; Mazak
and Groves 2006; but see Kitchener 1999; Wentzel et al.
1999; Luo et al. 2004) were included; 42 Bengal tigers
(P.t. tigris [27 #, 15 ~]), 25 Corbett’s tigers (P.t. corbetti
[11 #, 14 ~]), 17 Javan tigers (P.t. sondaica [9 #, 8 ~]),
and 16 Sumatran tigers (P.t. sumatrae [7 #, 9 ~]). Three
Mamm. biol. ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 P. Christiansen / Mamm. biol. ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
of the traditionally recognised eight lion subspecies
(Hemmer 1974; Christiansen, 2007a) were included; 92
East African lions (P.l. nubica [56 #, 36 ~]), 21
Southwest African lions (P.l. bleyenberghi [12 #, 9
~]), and 21 Southeast African lions (P.l. krugeri [11 #,
10 ~]). Analyses on upper canine height only encom-
passed 78 tigers (38 #, 40 ~) and 107 lions (61 #, 46 ~),
and analyses on lower canine height encompassed 68
tigers (44 #, 24 ~) and 74 lions (47 #, 27 ~), owing to
canines either being damaged, broken or even missing.
Additionally, several specimens either lacked or had
broken or partial mandibles. Only adult specimens were
used, as indicated by full dental eruption and sutural
fusion along the ventral part of the basicranium. All
variables were divided by condylobasal skull length or
lower jaw horizontal ramus length, as appropriate. To
restore normality (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) the ratios were
arcsine (angular) transformed prior to analysis, and one-
way analyses of variance were performed on the ratios.
Most ratios (30 of 39) were significantly different
(po0.01) between the two species in analyses of
variance, but most nonetheless displayed substantial
overlap of ratios, indicating that certain identification
would not be possible with most singular ratios,
statistically significantly different or not. A multivariate
principal components analysis (Fig. 1) on the measured
variables showed clear separation between the two
species, and little overlap among males and females
within each species. Subsequent discriminant analysis on
the principal components indicated that there were clear
differences among lion males, lion females, tiger males,
and tiger females (Wilk’s Lambda ¼ 0.0318; po0.0001).
There was slight misidentification in a resulting Jack-
knifed classification matrix, where three lion females
were misclassified as males (6.5% misclassification), and
6 lion males were misclassified as females (9.8%). Three
tiger females were misclassified as males (7.5%) and
three tiger males were misclassified as females (7.9%). A
multivariate analysis, accordingly, facilitates clear dis-
tinction between lions and tigers with no overlap, but
singular variables were required that could distinguish
between the two species with certainty. Thus, only ratios
that are statistically significantly different and show
virtually no overlap between the two species are
reported below.
Four variables fulfilled these criteria when divided to
condylobasal skull length or lower jaw length, as
appropriate; nasal length, height of the snout, and the
height of the upper and of the lower canine, respectively.
Nasal length was the full length from the ventral tip of
the lateral extensions along the narial aperture to the
point of truncation at the frontals, snout height was
from the ventral part of the I3 alveolus to the ventral
part of the nasals, and canine heights were crown height
in a straight line from the alveolar margin to the
crown apex.
Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera.... Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.mambio.2007.08.001
Fig. 1. Plot of the first two principal components on 30 skull
variables in 107 lions and 78 tigers. Variables included:
condylobasal skull length; facial length (maxilla–premaxilla
at gumline); length of sagittal crest; crown height and alveolar
width of C1; skull height in straight line at snout, P3/P4, and
pterygoid-postorbital process; height of zygomatic arch at
maxilla and posterior to postorbital zygomatic process; nasal
length; width across nasals at narial aperture and at maxilla–
frontal suture; muzzle, orbital, postorbital, and cranial width;
length of secondary palate; width across incisor arcade,
between C1, at P3 and P4, at pterygoid, across zygomatic
arches, mastoid processes, and occipital condyles; and length
and width of P3 and P4. Principal component 1 explains 67.2%
of sample variation, and is primarily associated with skull and
palatal lengths, and widths across the muzzle, incisors, and
palatal width at P3 and P4. Principal component 2 explains
10.3% of sample variation, and is primarily associated with C1
height and nasal length. Symbols &, lion (Panthera leo; #);
2, lion (Panthera leo; ~); J, tiger (Panthera tigris; #); ,
tiger (Panthera tigris; ~).
The average absolute values for lions and tigers are
listed in Table 1, and ratios are shown in Fig. 2. Nasal
length to condylobasal skull length (Fig. 2A) in the lion
(0.31870.016; range: 0.272–0.354) is highly significantly
less (po0.0001) than in the tiger (0.36970.012; range:
0.343–0.415). Mazak and Groves (2006) found that
Sumatran tigers had shorter nasal bones than other
Southeast Asian subspecies. This is not confirmed in the
present analysis. Nasal length/skull length in the in-
cluded subspecies were: Corbett’s tiger (0.37070.013;
range: 0.351–0.388); Bengal tiger (0.37270.011; 0.353–
0.415); Javan tiger (0.36470.010; 0.343–0.374); and
Sumatran tiger (0.36370.012; 0.349–0.380). None are
significantly different from each other (p40.10), the
closest p values is the Bengal tiger to the Javan
(p ¼ 0.127) and Sumatran (p ¼ 0.101) subspecies.
Merely 2 of 134 lions have nasal/skull length values at
or above 0.35 (0.350 and 0.354, respectively), and,
accordingly, only a very modest overlap of extreme
outliers are present on this ratio variable.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christiansen / Mamm. biol. ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

Table 1. Average skull and lower jaw measurements in lions and tigers in mm (7SD)

Averages

All tigers Tiger # Tiger ~ All lions Lion # Lion ~

Skull length 276.9724.4 291.9721.4 259.4713.9 297.6729.2 317.6719.0 268.9712.2

Upper canine height 54.8377.07 58.4376.43 50.9175.64 48.3275.36 51.5873.55 43.3672.93
Snout height 40.1674.58 42.2573.92 37.7074.09 52.4275.48 55.7474.20 47.6472.99
Length of nasal 102.4711.1 109.578.86 94.1576.82 94.6179.86 100.977.34 85.5674.48
Lower jaw length 190.6736.9 194.6744.4 183.2712.6 221.0724.8 234.1719.5 198.2714.2
Lower canine height 43.5978.89 44.50710.4 41.8074.29 41.6074.06 43.5073.11 38.1973.27

Fig. 2. Plots of ratios to condylobasal skull length or lower jaw length, as appropriate, in lions and tigers. White columns, lions; grey
columns, tigers. Cross-hatching indicates number of females: (A) nasal length to skull length; (B) snout height to skull length;
(C) upper canine height to skull length; (D) lower canine height to lower jaw length.

The sexual distribution of nasal/skull length ratios in
the tiger is non-random, and females dominate the lower
end of the range (Fig. 2A). Average nasal length/skull
ratios in tiger males (0.37570.007) is significantly
(po0.001) higher than in females (0.36370.013). In
the lion no such difference is apparent (p ¼ 0.995). An
allometry analysis of condylobasal skull length (X) and
nasal length (Y) confirmed this pattern, and the
regression slope in the tiger (b ¼ 1.17170.079; r ¼
0.965) is highly significantly (po0.001) steeper than the

Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera.... Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.mambio.2007.08.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 P. Christiansen / Mamm. biol. ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
slope in the lion (b ¼ 0.95470.089; r ¼ 0.910). The
slope in the tiger is significantly different (0.014p
40.001) from isometry (b ¼ 1.00), whereas that of the
lion is not. Accordingly, tigers not only have propor-
tionally distinctly longer nasal bones than do lions; they
also become progressively longer with increases in skull
size. Accordingly, lower outliers among tigers on this
ratio variable are all female.
Snout height to condylobasal skull length (Fig. 2B) in
the lion (0.17670.010; range: 0.146–0.214) is highly
significantly greater (po0.0001) than in the tiger
(0.14570.010; 0.122–0.181). There are no differences
in the average values of lion males and females, or tiger
males and females (p ¼ 0.821 and 0.999, respectively).
Upper canine height to condylobasal skull length
(Fig. 2C) in the lion (0.16270.010; range: 0.137–0.187)
is highly significantly less (po0.0001) than in the tiger
(0.19870.016; 0.166–0.230). The modest amount of
overlap present (Fig. 2C) is randomly distributed, and
there are no differences in average ratios between tiger
males and females, or lion males and females (p ¼ 0.507
and 0.919, respectively).
One of the most often cited differences between lions
and tigers pertain to the nasal–frontal suture in relation
to the maxillary–frontal suture, in that tigers supposedly
have the former situated well posterior to the level of the
latter, whereas the reverse is the case in the lion, and the
maxillary–frontal suture is said to be acute in the tiger
but truncated in the lion (Boule 1906; Merriam and
Stock 1932; Mazák 1983). This is only partly correct. In
this study, every tiger had the frontal–nasal suture either
slightly posterior to, or, most often, distinctly posterior
to the frontal–maxillary suture. The frontal–maxillary
suture is always acute. In Bengal and Corbett’s tigers,
the frontal–nasal suture is most often far posterior to the
frontal–maxillary suture, whereas it is often less poster-
ior in Javan and Sumatran tigers. In some Javan tigers
e.g. MNHN A1878 or SMF16261, the sutures are
almost at the same level, but the frontal–nasal suture is
always a few mm further posteriorly. In contrast, the
frontal–nasal suture in all lions terminates around the
level of the frontal–maxillary suture, either a few mm
posterior to it, but often slightly anterior to it. In no lion
did the frontal–nasal suture extend more than 5 mm
posterior to the frontal–maxillary suture. The frontal–
maxillary suture in lions is usually rather truncated, but
is also often as acute as in tigers. Note that nasal length
is not closely related to the position of the nasal–frontal
suture relative to the maxillary–frontal suture in
Panthera, in that jaguars (P. onca) have proportionally
short nasals, as lions, but posteriorly extending nasal–
frontal sutures, resembling tigers.
Herrington (1987) added a novel cranial character,
which she claimed distinguished lions from tigers with
100% certainty. In the tiger, the lambdoidal and
squamous sutures converge posteriorly, excluding the
Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera.... Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.mambio.2007.08.001
temporal from the occiput, whereas they are separate in
lions. This character is problematic and often obscured
by fusion in older individuals. In this study, both sutures
were visible in 60 lions and 51 tigers. In the lion, the
sutures were separate in 53 cases (88%) and close
together in 7 (12%), and in the tiger they were separate
in 13 cases (25%) and close together in 38 (75%). Note
that the term separate often does not imply the wide
separation illustrated in Herrington (1987): (Fig. 4);
often it is far less. This is not a proper character for
distinguishing lions and tigers.
A coronoid process extending posterior to (tiger) or
not extending posterior to (lion) the jaw cotyle is an
often cited difference between lions and tigers
(e.g., Boule 1906; Merriam and Stock 1932). This is,
however, incorrect, and there is much overlap. Even
‘‘typical’’ tiger mandibles often do not have the
coronoid process extending posteriorly beyond the jaw
cotyle (e.g., Fig. 3C and D). Better separation is seen in
the angular process, which is usually short and stumpy
and postero-dorsally directed in lions, and usually larger
and more ventrally directed in tigers, but some overlap
occurs (Fig. 3).
Placing a mandible on a flat surface is another often
cited difference between lions and tigers, in that a lion
mandible rests on the central part of the horizontal
ramus, and thus is able to ‘‘rock’’, whereas that of a tiger
will rest on the symphysis and angular process
(e.g., Boule 1906; Merriam and Stock 1932; Mazák
1983). However, this is dependent not only on ramus
morphology, but on the morphology and angulation of
the angular process. Clear separation among lions and
tigers is found in the following two features: lions always
have a convex ventral profile along the horizontal
ramus, regardless of angular process size and angulation
(Fig. 3A and B), whereas it is straight or even concave in
tigers. The lower canine is distinctly longer relative to
mandibular length in tigers (Fig. 2D). In the lion,
C1/mandibular length ratios are 0.18970.015 (range:
0.153–0.216), and this is highly significantly less
(po0.0001) than in the tiger (0.23070.012; 0.206–
0.257) with very slight overlap. There are no sexually
biased differences in ratios of this variable, and averages
in tiger males and females and lion males and females
are non-significantly different (p ¼ 0.959 and 0.419,
respectively).
In many cases, a lion skull is going to be distinguish-
able from that of a tiger by using Boule’s (1906) list of
morphological characters, or by using the subtle
differences in post-canine dentition (Kabitzsch 1960).
Canine crown proportions are also different in the two
species (Christiansen 2007b). The morphometric char-
acters of the present study are, however, far more
reliable, and will distinguish even outliers with 100%
certainty. Any skull with a C1/skull length ratio above
0.19, a snout height/skull length ratio of 0.18 or less, a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Christiansen / Mamm. biol. ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5

Fig. 3. Mandibular morphology of (A) typical lion (CN5227), (B) ‘‘tiger-like’’ lion (CN5844), (C) typical tiger (CN10), (D) ‘‘lion-
like’’ tiger (CN15). Note the almost straight (sometimes even concave) ventral profile along the horizontal ramus, the rectangular
horizontal ramus outline, and the large, postero-ventrally directed angular process in the typical tiger. In lions, the horizontal ramus
usually tapers anteriorly and the ventral profile is distinctly convex. However, a ‘‘tiger-like’’ lion can have an almost rectangular
horizontal ramus profile, and a rather large, postero-ventrally directed angular process also. Lions, however, always have a convex
ventral profile along the horizontal ramus, proportionally shorter C1, and a more smoothly rounded mandibular symphysis. Scale
bars equal 5 cm.

nasal length/skull length of around 0.35 or more, or a
C1/mandibular ratio of 0.215 or more is guaranteed to
be a tiger, since these values exclude even the most
extreme outliers among lions. Conversely, any skull with
a C1/skull length ratio of 0.165 or less, a snout height/
skull length ratio of 0.18 or more, a nasal length/skull
length of around 0.34 or less, or a C1/mandibular ratio
of 0.205 or less is guaranteed to be a lion, since these
values exclude even the most extreme outliers among
tigers.
This is, however, a worst-case scenario, implying that
the unknown skull is an extreme outlier on every
variable. In reality, no specimen, which constituted an
outlier on one osteometric ratio also constituted an
outlier on any of the other osteometric indices discussed
above. Accordingly, any specimen which is found to
group at the outer range of variation on one variable in
either the lion or the tiger may be easily identified with
100% accuracy by computing any of the other ratios.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to curators Daphne Hills at the Natural
History Museum, Irene Mann and Hendrik Turni at the
Museum für Naturkunde, Olavi Grönwall at the
Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, Katrin Krohman at Nat-
urmuseum Senckenberg, Doris Möricke at Staatliches
Museum fûr Naturkunde, and Joséphine Lesur-Gebre-
mariam and Francois Renault at the Museum national
d’Histoire Naturelle for assistance and hospitability.
Two anonymous reviewers provided constructive criti-
cism on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
References
Boule, M., 1906. Les grand chats des cavernes. Ann. Paléontol.
1, 69–95.
Christiansen, P., 2007a. On the distinctiveness of the Cape lion
(Panthera leo melanochaita Smith, 1842), and a possible
new specimen from the Zoological Museum, Copenhagen
Mamm. Biol. in press, DOI:10.1016/j.mambio.2007.06.003.
Christiansen, P., 2007b. Canine morphology of the larger
Felidae: implications for feeding ecology. Biol. J. Linn. Soc.
91, 573–592.
Haltenorth, T., 1936. Die verwandtschaftliche Stellung der
Großkatzen zueinander. I. Beschreibung der Schädelkno-
chen. Z. Säugetierk. 11, 32–105.
Haltenorth, T., 1937. Die verwandtschaftliche Stellung der
Großkatzen zueinander VII. Z. Säugetierk. 12, 97–240.
Hemmer, H., 1974. Untersuchungen zur Stammesgeschichte
der Pantherkatzen (Pantherinae). Teil III. Zur Arts-
geschichte des Löwen Panthera (Panthera) leo (Linnaeus
1758). Veröff. Zool. Staatssaml. München 17, 167–280.
Hemmer, H., 1987. The phylogeny of the tiger (Panthera
tigris). In: Tilson, R.l., Seal, U.S. (Eds.), Tigers of the
World. The Biology, Biopolitics, Management, and Con-
servation of an Endangered Species. Noyes Publications,
New Jersey, pp. 28–35.
Herrington, S.J., 1987. Subspecies and the conservation of
Panthera tigris: preserving genetic heterogeneity. In: Tilson,

Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera.... Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.mambio.2007.08.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 P. Christiansen / Mamm. biol. ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
R.l., Seal, U.S. (Eds.), Tigers of the World. The Biology,
Biopolitics, Management, and Conservation of an Endan-
gered Species. Noyes Publications, New Jersey, pp. 51–61.
Hilzheimer, M., 1924. Die systematische Stellung von Felis
spelaea Goldf. Sitzber. Ges. Naturforsch. Freunde 1922,
11–24.
Kabitzsch, J.-F., 1960. Die Verwandtschaft vom Löwen und
tiger dargestellt in ihrem Gebiss unter Berücksichtigung der
Gebisse von Jaguar und den zwei pleistozänen Großkatzen
Felis spelaea und Felis arox. Säugetierk. Mitt. 8, 103–140.
Kitchener, A.C., 1999. Tiger distribution, phenotypic variation
and conservation issues. In: Seidensticker, J., Christie, S.,
Jackson, P. (Eds.), Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in
Human-dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 19–39.
Luo, S.-J., Kim, J.-H., Johnson, W.E., van der Walt, J.,
Martenson, J., Yuhki, N., Miquelle, D.G., Uphyrkina, O.,
Goodrich, J.M., Quigley, H.B., Tilson, R., Brady, G.,
Martelli, P., Subramaniam, V., McDougal, C., Hean, S.,
Huang, S.-Q., Pan, W., Karanth, U.K., Sunquist, M.,
Smith, J.L.D., O’Brien, S.J., 2004. Phylogeography and
genetic ancestry of tigers (Panthera tigris). PLoS Biol. 2,
2275–2293.
Mazák, V., 1981. Panthera tigris. Mamm. Species 152, 1–8.
Mazák, V., 1983. Der Tiger. Neue Brehm-Bücherei 356. A.
Ziemsen, Verlag.
Merriam, J.C., Stock, C., 1932. The Felidae of Rancho La
Brea, 422. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication,
pp. 1–232.
Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera.... Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.mambio.2007.08.001
Nowak, R.M., 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World, I & II.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Pocock, R.I., 1929. Tigers. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 33 (3),
505–541.
Pocock, R.I., 1930. The lions of Asia. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.
Soc. 34 (3), 638–665.
Pocock, R.I., 1939. The fauna of British India, including
Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia; vol. I: Primates and
Carnivora. Taylor & Francis, London.
Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., Jackson, P., 1999. Preface. In:
Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., Jackson, P. (Eds.), Riding
the Tiger. Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated
Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. XV–XIX.
Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J., 1995. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and
Co., New York, 887pp.
Sunquist, M., Sunquist, F., 2002. Wild Cats of the World.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 452pp.
Wentzel, J., Stephens, J.C., Johnson, W., Menotti-Raymond,
M., Pecon-Slattery, J., Yuhki, N., Carrington, M., Quigley,
H.B., Miquelle, D.G., Tilson, R., Manansang, J., Brady,
G., Zhi, L., Wenshi, P., Shi-Quiang, H., Johnston, L.,
Sunquist, M., Karanth, K.U., O’Brien, S.J., 1999. Sub-
species of tigers: molecular assessment using ‘voucher
specimens’ of geographically traceable individuals. In:
Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., Jackson, P. (Eds.), Riding
the Tiger. Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated
Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 40–49.