ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

MEASUREMENTS AND WEIGHTS OF TIGER AND GAUR SHOT IN THE NORTH COIMBATORE JUNGLES IN OR BEFORE 1937

a - Introduction

When I was reading all volumes of the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS) published in the period 1885-1960 once again, I found a lot of information about the size of big cats and many other mammals. Most records are dismissed by biologists, but those who measured and weighed big cats were accurate. Not seldom, they explained in what way the method used was applied in great detail.   

In some regions of what used to be British India big cats were measured 'over curves', but in other regions they were measured 'between pegs'. Most of those informing the members of the JBNHS measured big cats 'between pegs'. 

The main advantage of this method is it reflect the true length of a big cat. This is why zoologists in (most) natural history museums in western Europe still use this method. Another advantage is the outcome of a measurement taken in this way by different people is more or less similar. This is not the case when a cat is measured 'over curves'.    

Some years ago, when I measured (sedated or deceased) captive big cats every now and then, I often used the opportunity to test the differences between both methods ('over curves' and 'between pegs'). A big cat measured 'over curves' by different people always produced quite different results. A cat measured 'between pegs' by different people did not. 

Biologists today measure wild big cats 'over curves'. The most probable reason is it isn't easy to find a flat surface in wild country. Furthermore, it isn't easy to move a big cat not seldom well exceeding 400 pounds. 

Although biologists say the method in use today is used in a more or less uniform way, descriptions offered by those involved in measuring big cats suggest the method seems to be applied in different ways.

b - On a letter of R.C. Morris published in the JBNHS in 1938

In the days of the British Raj, officers in particular often recorded the length and weight of big cats they shot. Not all of them sent letters to the editors of magazines like The Field, The Indian Forester or the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, but quite a few did. One of the main contributors in the department of measurements and weights was R.C. Morris. 

In Volume XL (40), Part 1 (Miscellaneous Notes, No. II, pp. 114-115), I found this letter:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

*This image is copyright of its original author

The undated letter (most probably posted in the autumn of 1937 and) published in the spring of 1938, doesn't have a nice story and isn't very long. Chances are you'll just take a brief look and then move on. The letter, however, offers a wealth of information on the size of three species often hunted in those days. 

As his letter can be used to find out a bit more on the size of tigers, leopards and gaurs in that region about 80-90 years ago, I decided for two tables. The table on leopards was posted in the leopard extinction thread. The table on tigers was posted in this thread.  

c - The length of tigers and the weight of gaurs shot in the North Coinbatore jungles in or before 1937

The table below is based on the letter discussed above. Two tigers, a female with a total length of 7.5 and a male with a total length of 6.6, were not used for the table (1). The reason is both, most probably, were immature. Feet and inches were exchanged for cm. and pounds were exchanged for kg. (2). I assumed the animals in his letter were shot in or, more likely, before 1937 (3). All tigers were shot in the North Coimbatore jungles (4). Same for the 4 gaur bulls: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

   

One more thing. In his letter, Morris didn't say in which way the tigers were measured. He, however, did in other letters. Tigers and leopards were measured 'between pegs'. 

d - Conclusions

Those of you interested in size will remember that male tigers in Central India (referring to Dunbar Brander's 'Wild Animals in Central India' published in 1923) averaged 9.3 (281,94 cm.) in total length, whereas tigresses averaged 8.4 (254,00 cm.). The 3 longest males shot in Central India taped 10.3 (312,42 cm.), 10.2 (309,88 cm.) and 9.11 (302,26 cm.).

Male tigers shot in the North Coimbatore jungles were a bit shorter (just over 8.11 in total length 'between pegs' as opposed to 9.3), but females (8.4) were as long as those shot in central India. The longest male shot in the North Coimbatore jungles taped 9.10 (299,84 cm.), but the sample of Morris is quite limited. In other letters published in the JBNHS, I found reliable records of male tigers shot in the Nilgiris exceeding 10.0 (304,80 cm.).  

When discussing southern India, one has to distinguish between the Nilgiris and, for example, the Deccan. Nilgiris tigers were, and still are (referring to recent information of Ullas Karanth), quite large, whereas those shot on the Deccan were smaller. The two longest male tigers shot on the Deccan I know of (referring to information provided by Brig.-Gen. R.G. Burton), were 9.8 'between pegs'.

Coimbatore seems to be on the border. Here's map of 1909. Coimbatore is just below Mysore (watch the red marker):

*This image is copyright of its original author

   
e - More information on the size of tigers in southern India

Those interested in the size of tigers in southern India can find a lot more in the JBNHS. Apart from that, you can find a number of free e-books. When you can, order a few books published a century ago. Most reprints are quite cheap.  

As stated above, Nilgiris tigers are quite large, whereas those shot in Mysore and what was known as the 'Madras Presidency' in the days of the British Raj were smaller. 

Over the years, I found a lot of books about Sumatran tigers published in the days of the former Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). Some hunters visited southeastern India. They thought there wasn't much to choose between tigers in southeastern India and Sumatra. Those in southeastern India were generally a bit bigger, but the difference was limited. This, of course, was in the days Sumatra had much more tigers. Reply