(02-10-2015, 02:56 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: I am afraid that you have perhaps bought a fake tooth.

Since a real tiger tooth has those trench-like marks on the crown part, but it doesn't appear on your tooth.

Maybe it is due over polishing?

BTW, are you sure it is a real tooth or it is simply made by resin just like the Bone Clone products?

Also, did you feel the tooth is organic? When it can be cracking or smelly, then it is indeed a real tooth.

 

(02-10-2015, 03:42 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Then it is indeed a real tooth, since the resin can be easily melted by the heat.

Maybe those darkened trench-like lines were removed after polishing.

BTW, what is the weight of your canine?

It is close to 6 inches, and a male tiger's canine tooth must be very heavy with that size.

You can weigh it on a weight calculator based on the gram.

 

(02-12-2015, 09:01 PM)'peter' Wrote: BOOKS

I recently ordered two dozen books. Half of it is on Sunda tigers and the other half on Indian tigers. One of the books is the famous book of Smythies ('Big Game Hunting in Nepal'). It's very expensive, but has, as the seller said, " ... lots of dead tigers ... ", meaning a lot of records and weights. In this respect, the book compares to that of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and Sir John Hewett ('Jungle Trails in Northern India'). 

I also bought a book written by Lt.-Col. H.S. Wood ('Shikar Memories', London, 1934). Wood did his hunting in Burma and Assam, although all tigers were shot in Assam (Tezpur). Like nearly everyone in those days in northern India and Nepal, Wood measured the tigers he shot (or poisoned) 'over curves'. His longest compared to those shot by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Hewett, Corbett and Smythies (between 10.4 and just over 10.5). The longest tigers also were the heaviest. Heavy tigers weren't quantified, but expressed in the number of men needed to carry them.

To give you an idea about weight. Hewett wrote some of the heaviest he shot had to be carried by 12 able men. Wood wrote he needed 11 to carry two tigers taping 10 feet four and a half inches (more than once). I wouldn't know about then and now, but over here, on a concrete and horizontal floor, we needed 4 to carry an average male Amur tiger and five for a big one (over 440 pounds). One has to assume the men in Wild India in those days were fitter than we are, but they didn't have a stretcher and the tiger had to be moved from a nullah as well.

If you think the tigers mentioned were heavy compared to a wild boar, you are wrong. In Assam, Wood shot a wild boar with 9-inch tusks that had to be carried by 17 men (...). And he wasn't the largest he saw. This was in the days just before and after the turn of the previous century. I remember a letter in the JBNHS on a 350-pound wild boar. A wild boar of that weight was considered exceptional in the first half of the 20th century. But it wasn't. In Assam, half a century earlier, they would have considered him a decent amateur. 

Wood, by the way, again confirmed that a solitary big male wild boar often was a match for even a big male tiger. Didn't keep 'm from trying, though, as porc was their favorite. Wood saw many trampled arenas and in most cases the tiger had suffered a local defeat. Remember some male tigers, like today, were well over 500 pounds. Wood described them as immense animals. In this respect, he's consistent with others who hunted in this part of India. 


METHODS

I've read many books about Indian tigers. The conclusion I reached is tigers in Nepal, north-west India, Assam and Cooch Behar were nearly always measured 'over curves'. In Central India, on the other hand, tigers were always measured 'between pegs'. Those in southern India were measured in both ways. In southern India, it depended on the hunter (and not on the local habits).

The difference between the two methods always posed problems, but I think they are overdoing it. Those who had experience with both methods agreed it usually was about 6 inches in an adult male tiger. If the tiger was a large male and the hunter a slopper, the difference could be as much as 8-12 inches. In north-west India, however, hunters who had experience with both methods agreed the difference was 2-5 inches (two for females and five for large males). In Cooch Behar, the difference in ten adult males measured in both ways was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm.). All in all, it was a bit of a mixed bag.

To conclude. It is important to remember that tigers were measured in a different way in different parts of India before Independance. In northern India, measuring a tiger was considered a sacred ritual. They took their time, which, of course, resulted in a limited difference between both methods. Same in Central India. In other regions, things appeared to be a bit more casual.   


LENGTH

Those loaded with experience agreed tigers in northern India were larger (longer and heavier) in northern India. In spite of that, most of those who wrote books were unable to produce a tiger over 10.6 measured 'over curves' (roundabout 10 feet straight) in that part of India, whereas there are quite many reliable reports on ten feet tigers (measured 'between pegs') in Central India. What to make of that?

One is the difference related to averages. Two is it would have been easier to find an exceptional animal when there were ten tigers to every one today. The information I have leaves no room for interpretations or mistakes: tigers of 9.8 straight and over were found everywhere in India a century ago. 

So how about these averages for different parts of India then?

I have well over 500 measurements of adult male tigers I consider reliable. About half of these relate to tigers measured 'between pegs'. There is, in my opinion, no doubt regarding averages: tigers in Nepal and northern India were longer than those in other parts of India. Although I'm not done yet, my guess is adult males in southern India average about 9 feet 'between pegs' (a bit longer in the south-west and a bit shorter in the south-east), about 9.2 'between pegs' in Central India (those in the eastern part a bit longer and those in the western part a bit shorter) and about 9.4 'between pegs' in northern India (those in the north-west are a bit longer than those in the north-east). There's no doubt that Nepal tigers exceed 9.4 'between pegs', but I didn't get to an average yet. Compared to Amur tigers today (between 9.7-9.8 'between pegs' for males of 36 months and over and definitely over 9.8 'between pegs' for adult males of 48 months and over), Nepal tigers are a bit shorter, but not by much (1-3 inches).

This year, I will construct tables on the size of tigers everywhere. With 'size', I mean length, weight, skull and body dimensions. Some of the tables will be posted. When I have the book of Smythies, I will post a few scans.

 

(02-13-2015, 02:16 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote:

(02-13-2015, 12:29 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(02-12-2015, 09:01 PM)'peter' Wrote: BOOKS

I recently ordered two dozen books. Half of it is on Sunda tigers and the other half on Indian tigers. One of the books is the famous book of Smythies ('Big Game Hunting in Nepal'). It's very expensive, but has, as the seller said, " ... lots of dead tigers ... ", meaning a lot of records and weights. In this respect, the book compares to that of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and Sir John Hewett ('Jungle Trails in Northern India'). 

I also bought a book written by Lt.-Col. H.S. Wood ('Shikar Memories', London, 1934). Wood did his hunting in Burma and Assam, although all tigers were shot in Assam (Tezpur). Like nearly everyone in those days in northern India and Nepal, Wood measured the tigers he shot (or poisoned) 'over curves'. His longest compared to those shot by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Hewett, Corbett and Smythies (between 10.4 and just over 10.5). The longest tigers also were the heaviest. Heavy tigers weren't quantified, but expressed in the number of men needed to carry them.

To give you an idea about weight. Hewett wrote some of the heaviest he shot had to be carried by 12 able men. Wood wrote he needed 11 to carry two tigers taping 10 feet four and a half inches (more than once). I wouldn't know about then and now, but over here, on a concrete and horizontal floor, we needed 4 to carry an average male Amur tiger and five for a big one (over 440 pounds). One has to assume the men in Wild India in those days were fitter than we are, but they didn't have a stretcher and the tiger had to be moved from a nullah as well.

If you think the tigers mentioned were heavy compared to a wild boar, you are wrong. In Assam, Wood shot a wild boar with 9-inch tusks that had to be carried by 17 men (...). And he wasn't the largest he saw. This was in the days just before and after the turn of the previous century. I remember a letter in the JBNHS on a 350-pound wild boar. A wild boar of that weight was considered exceptional in the first half of the 20th century. But it wasn't. In Assam, half a century earlier, they would have considered him a decent amateur. 

Wood, by the way, again confirmed that a solitary big male wild boar often was a match for even a big male tiger. Didn't keep 'm from trying, though, as porc was their favorite. Wood saw many trampled arenas and in most cases the tiger had suffered a local defeat. Remember some male tigers, like today, were well over 500 pounds. Wood described them as immense animals. In this respect, he's consistent with others who hunted in this part of India. 


METHODS

I've read many books about Indian tigers. The conclusion I reached is tigers in Nepal, north-west India, Assam and Cooch Behar were nearly always measured 'over curves'. In Central India, on the other hand, tigers were always measured 'between pegs'. Those in southern India were measured in both ways. In southern India, it depended on the hunter (and not on the local habits).

The difference between the two methods always posed problems, but I think they are overdoing it. Those who had experience with both methods agreed it usually was about 6 inches in an adult male tiger. If the tiger was a large male and the hunter a slopper, the difference could be as much as 8-12 inches. In north-west India, however, hunters who had experience with both methods agreed the difference was 2-5 inches (two for females and five for large males). In Cooch Behar, the difference in ten adult males measured in both ways was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm.). All in all, it was a bit of a mixed bag.

To conclude. It is important to remember that tigers were measured in a different way in different parts of India before Independance. In northern India, measuring a tiger was considered a sacred ritual. They took their time, which, of course, resulted in a limited difference between both methods. Same in Central India. In other regions, things appeared to be a bit more casual.   


LENGTH

Those loaded with experience agreed tigers in northern India were larger (longer and heavier) in northern India. In spite of that, most of those who wrote books were unable to produce a tiger over 10.6 measured 'over curves' (roundabout 10 feet straight) in that part of India, whereas there are quite many reliable reports on ten feet tigers (measured 'between pegs') in Central India. What to make of that?

One is the difference related to averages. Two is it would have been easier to find an exceptional animal when there were ten tigers to every one today. The information I have leaves no room for interpretations or mistakes: tigers of 9.8 straight and over were found everywhere in India a century ago. 

So how about these averages for different parts of India then?

I have well over 500 measurements of adult male tigers I consider reliable. About half of these relate to tigers measured 'between pegs'. There is, in my opinion, no doubt regarding averages: tigers in Nepal and northern India were longer than those in other parts of India. Although I'm not done yet, my guess is adult males in southern India average about 9 feet 'between pegs' (a bit longer in the south-west and a bit shorter in the south-east), about 9.2 'between pegs' in Central India (those in the eastern part a bit longer and those in the western part a bit shorter) and about 9.4 'between pegs' in northern India (those in the north-west are a bit longer than those in the north-east). There's no doubt that Nepal tigers exceed 9.4 'between pegs', but I didn't get to an average yet. Compared to Amur tigers today (between 9.7-9.8 'between pegs' for males of 36 months and over and definitely over 9.8 'between pegs' for adult males of 48 months and over), Nepal tigers are a bit shorter, but not by much (1-3 inches).

This year, I will construct tables on the size of tigers everywhere. With 'size', I mean length, weight, skull and body dimensions. Some of the tables will be posted. When I have the book of Smythies, I will post a few scans.



 

Since body length is the best correlation to body weight in Tigers, it pretty much ties perfectly in with the idea that N. Indian Tigers are probably the largest of all cats in the human era.

About Boar, I am not surprised one bit. I have seen some absolutely massive boar and when you watch predation on them, it takes extreme effort for a tiger just to penetrate the animal. Unless a tiger gets a throat hold, its in for a very long battle. Boars are so close to the ground that their throats are not easily accessible.
 


 

But amur tigers are longer...arent they?