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

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART II

b - On Smythies and the method used to measure tigers

Before starting on the book, it wouldn't be superfluous to say that A.E. Smythies, before he was appointed Forest Advisor to the Nepal Government by the Maharajah of Nepal, was Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. This means that he has to be regarded as an authority. As all Indian forest officers, Smythies was very interested in shikar and tigers (Preface, pp. v).

As to the criticism of WaveRiders. Although I agree that the general attitude regarding the one who appointed him as Forest Advisor (the Maharajah of Nepal) was somewhat servile, the book is interesting. As Forest Advisor, Smythies had the opportunity to read the shikar diaries of the Maharajah. He thought they should be published. Those of us interested in tigers no doubt are glad they were.   

WaveRiders also wrote the information on measurements has to be taken with care, because Smythies was not present when the tigers were measured. This means the book can't be classified as a primary source. I agree, but it also is a fact that the book is entirely based on the diaries of someone who was there (the Maharajah of Nepal). Furthermore, the one in charge of shikar (General Shumshere Jung Bahadur Rana) told Smythies that the measurements " ... are really accurate and correct. Inaccuracies, exaggerations, and insincere flattery have been scrupulously avoided ... " (pp. vi).

Gen. Shumshere Jung Bahadur was in charge of shikar on all shoots mentioned in the book (Appendix I, pp. 163-166). This means that he was responsable for the measurements. As many of those invited for the shoot were well-known people with a reputation to lose, one has to assume that the measurements were taken with care. This was underlined more than once:

" ... The figures (Smythies was referring to the measurements of an extra-large tiger) above, which are scrupulously accurate in every way (being summarised from His Highness's shikar diary, in which no exaggeration is possible, as it is written under his personal direction) ... " (pp. 36).

" ... All measurements recorded in this book are round the curves, from the nose to the tip of the tail, with the head stretched out and are absolutely accurate ... " (pp. 88).

The tigers shot were photographed and measured immediately after death:

" ... After a tremendous shikar, 4 tigers were laid out, and everyone dismounted from the elephants to take measurements and photographs as usual ... " (pp. 136).  


c - On the validity of the measurements

It is known that conditions in Nepal suit tigers and that Nepal produces large tigers. The only two wild male tigers who bottomed a 600-pound scale were Nepal tigers. A century ago, it wasn't much different. Nepal was famous for its tigers in those days as well. In quite many regions, they were not hunted at all. One needed a special permit from the Maharajah. Apart from a few exceptions (Hewett participated in one of them), the only one who hunted tigers in Nepal was the Maharajah and he had all the help one can get: very experienced trackers and shikari's, hundreds (...) of trained elephants and almost pristine conditions in many regions.

For these reasons, I expected to find information on extra-large tigers in the book of Smythies. Extra-large in my dictionary would be 11 feet 'over curves' in total length and about 650 pounds empty or a bit over. I was close. The longest and heaviest male was 10.9 'over curves' in total length and 705 pounds. The Maharajah thought there was a 11-footer, but this wily old male never was at home when the Maharajah went after him. 

Nepal tigers were measured round the curves and it was done immediately after death. As accurate as in northern India? My guess is yes, as those who wrote about measurements in northern India were invited by the Maharajah of Nepal more than once and they no doubt talked about the methods the measure a big cat. The Maharajah of Nepal often invited well-known people and the last thing they would have wanted was gossip about 11-inch tapes and 12-foot tigers at parties. Reputations really counted in those days. After reading the book more than once, I think it is very likely that the measurements are accurate. This, of course, is an opinion only.

What is the real length of a tiger who taped 10.9 'over curves' in total length? Those who wrote about the value of curve-measurements in northern India thought the difference was 2-5 inches. Two for a small female and 5 for a large male then? Not quite. When he compared the records of different hunters, Sir John Hewett concluded:

" ... These measurements (he was referring to measurements of extra-large male tigers shot in different parts of British India) were, I believe, all taken over the curves, and correspond very closely to those taken by Dunbar-Brander and others, allowing for two or three inches of difference, between pegs ... " (the 2008 Natraj Publishers reprint of 'Jungle trails in northern India', J. Hewett, pp. 70).

So Hewett, based on a lot of experience, thought that the difference between both methods was about 2-3 inches for large male tigers.

I can hear you say that the longest male tiger shot in Cooch Behar, 10.5 'over curves', was 7 inches shorter when he was measured 'between pegs' (9.10). This is true. I know of more examples in which the difference between both methods in extra-long male tigers was about 7 inches. But Cooch Behar is not northern India and the method used most ('over curves') was applied in different ways (this is the problem with this method). One also has to remember that the average difference between both methods in Cooch Behar was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm.) in male tigers (n=10). If tigers in northwest India, as Hewett stated time and again, were more accurately measured than in other regions (like Cooch Behar), chances are he could have been close in his assessment (2-3 inches in male tigers). 

In his book 'Jungle trails in northern India' published in 1938 (I have the reprint published by Natraj Publishers in 2008), Hewett wrote " ... The number that I have actually seen shot myself is 247 ... " (pp. 66). As to accuracy: " ... I was taught by Mr. MacDonald to measure the body round the curves from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail with a Chesterman's tape measure such as was always used in India in Public Works Department measurements. The measurement of the tiger was with him a matter of some ceremony, and was carried out with extreme accuracy before the tiger was padded ... " (pp. 67). Hewett, therefore, was loaded with experience and has to be taken very seriously.  

How get to a conclusion? I propose to assume that tigers in northern India were measured in a very strict way 'over curves'. This would result in a slight difference between both methods. For Hewett, the 10.9 tiger in Nepal would have been 10.6-10.7 'between pegs'. 

I assume that the method used in northern India was used in Nepal as well. Smythies, like Hewett (both hunted tigers in the U.P., which is very close to Nepal), more than once emphasized the importance of 'accuracy' in his book. Both have been in Nepal and Smythies, more than once, underlined that tigers in Nepal were accurately measured. For me, as stated before (see above), this is good enough. 

There's also something else to consider. Based on the information I have, I expect the longest tigers to max out at 10.6-10.8 'between pegs' in India and Nepal. Following the conclusions of Hewett, the difference between both methods in Nepal could have been 2-5 inches in male tigers in Nepal. This means that the 10.9 tiger could have been 10.4-10.7 'between pegs'. In order to prevent a debate, I propose 10.4 'between pegs' for now, maybe an inch more or less. This means he was a bit longer than the Sauraha tiger, who bottomed a 600-pound scale the last time he was weighed (when he was wearing a collar).

As to the enormous weight (705 lbs. or 319,79 kg.). This is what is written about the giant tiger in the book of Smythies:

" ... No less than nine kills had been reported from different places around the camp, a plethora on a marching day when all the elephants had been employed in moving camp (which was moved that day). General Kaiser organised a ring of only 500 yards away from the camp, on the further side of the Rapti, and successfully enclosed a tiger. This proved to be yet another enormous fighting tiger, who on being wounded 'sprang with one terrible bound towards the howdah, but his progress was stopped in mid-air by a shot from the Maharajah'. A superb and realistic painting of this scene hangs to-day in the great Durbar Hall in Kathmandu, which is reproduced in plate 23 in this book. This was the largest tiger His Highness has ever shot, 10 feet 9 inches, and probably one of the half dozen largest that ever have been shot since correct measurements started (all measurements recorded in this book are round the curves, from the nose to the tip of the tail, with the head stretched out and are absolutely accurate) ... " (pp. 88).

So the tiger was enclosed in the ring when all elephants were used to move camp. My guess is he most probably wasn't gorged, as this would have prevented him jumping the howdah (a vertical distance of 15-16 feet). Although I do not doubt that some will deduct a 100 pounds from this giant, my take is it is would have been much less for the reason mentioned.  

For me, the information on the 10.9 tiger adds up. We know long tigers usually are much heavier than short tigers and this tiger was both long and heavy. In a straight line, he was well over 10 feet in total length. We also know he was the largest the Maharajah ever shot. 

Anything else on reliability? Yes. I will post a table of the Nepal average. It's entirely based on the book of Smythies and fits the information I have. Nepal tigers were (and most probably still are) longer than anywhere else, although Amur tigers could compare (unclear). We also know that exceptional males can reach and even exceed 600 pounds today. I expected 650 empty or a bit more for the heaviest shot in a time when there were much more tigers and that's what we got. 

One more remark. All in all, 433 tigers were shot between 1933-1939. I have 78 records of adult tigers, which is about 18% of all tigers shot. Most of the others shot were immature animals, but I do not doubt that young adults were omitted as well. This means the tables I made are based on the 78 largest animals (males and females). This no doubt will result in a slightly higher average, but one has to remember that the averages of other regions, for the same reason, also will be somewhat higher. Hunters usually tend to report on the most impressive animals. However. I have to admit that the averages 'over curves' more or less compare to the averages 'between pegs' (northern India and Nepal).   


d - African lions in Nepal?

Yes:

" ... At this time also a lion and a lioness from the Nepal Zoo were released in the forests (...), possibly to add variety in this big game paradise. However a lion bred in a zoo would have no chance against a jungle tiger, and as recorded later in this chapter, this pair turned into atrocious cattle-killers and steps were taken to kill them ... " (pp. 108). 

" ... It is impossible, and would be rather boring, to record in detail all the incidents of this amazing shoot, so we will skip a week and go on to February 23 (1938). Many reports had been coming from the villagers of damage and destruction to their herds of cattle by two new and ferocious animals, which, from the descriptions given, were clearly the two African lions that had been released in the valley a month before. His Highness therefore decided to kill them, or they might turn into man-eaters in the future. He therefore asked commanding General Bahadur to shoot them, and also to pay to the cattle owners the price of all cattle killed by them. General Bahadur killed the male with two shots, possibly the only occasion on record where African lions have been shot in Indian jungles. It measured 8 feet 4 inches, a relatively small beast compared to the mighty tigers of this tract (Chitawan). The lioness however escaped but was shot a few days later. She was naturally safe from the attacks of male tigers, and it would have been interesting to see if cross-bred 'tigons' ever appeared in Chitawan, which have at times been born in Indian zoos. But it would have been a dangerous experiment, as she was clearly only fit to kill cattle ... " (pp. 115).

This happened in 1938. For some reason, it was decided to release two captive-bred African lions from the Kathmandu Zoo. Both animals, of course, turned to cattle and were shot after about a month. I think it's best to refrain from comments.


e - A plate of the longest and heaviest Nepal tiger shot 

This is plate 22 with the 10.9 Chitawan tiger who sprang towards the howdah when he was enclosed and shot at (see -c-). Try to imagine a 705-pound tiger going for the howdah (a vertical distance of 15-16 feet). He had to be gorged, some tried. I don't think he was.

It's very likely that the plate was based on a photograph. The reason is all animals shot after the 'ring' had been cleared (everything usually was shot) were measured and photographed:    

*This image is copyright of its original author

The giant above wasn't the only extra-large tiger shot in Nepal. The tiger in the centre below, also shot in Nepal, compared. He must have been very heavy as well.

The weight of tigers often is underestimated. I saw it time and again in captive animals and assume it wasn't much different back then. The most likely reason is tigers often are quite long and athletic animals. Symmetry. Other factors, like vertical stripes, no mane and a moderately-sized skull, probably also contribute. 

As this idea (tigers are long and lanky) apparently stuck in the minds of many, those with experience, like Dunbar Brander, Hewett and Smythies, in their books, underlined that adult wild tigers are muscular and robust animals, not seldom dwarfing the parodies in captivity (tigers, in contrast to lions, often quickly degenerate in captivity). Not saying that lions are not robust (they are), but tigers often are a bit underestimated.

Also notice the large male tiger below is empty:  

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

One more to underline the point made on length and weight in tigers. This is the Sauraha tiger. At 10.2 'between pegs' (Sunquist) or 'over curves' (Tamang) or 'almost between pegs, but not quite' (I still don't know), he amazed the Sunquists. Fiona, regarding the pugmarks they saw in the dust wrote:

" ... size alone told us they belonged to the six-hundred-pound Sauraha tiger ... " ('Tiger Moon', Fiona and Mel Sunquist, 1988, pp. 60). Do you see 600 pounds?

*This image is copyright of its original author

Or this one. The 'Killer of men' was significantly larger than the largest Berg had shot (9.7 'between pegs' and 565 pounds). This means that 'The killer of men', who dwarfed that tiger, was at least 600, if not considerably over that mark. Not larger than the large males of today, Copters wrote. I understand. He doesn't look large, but he most definitely was. Berg had plenty of experience with tigers and he never saw one larger than this one. This tiger operated just south of Bhutan (very close to Morang in Nepal, where some males also reached a great size) and had quite a reputation. The horns of the large wild male buffalo's he killed nearly always stuck into the ground ground (...). Talking power. Berg was so impressed, that he decided against killing the tiger:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply