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

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART VIII


a - Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam (males)

The tables below are based on the books of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar ('Thirty-seven years of big game shooting in Cooch Behar, the Duars, and Assam. A rough diary.', Bombay 1908) and, regarding tigers 90, 91 and 92, J.M. Brown ('Stray sport', Volume 2, London, 1893). I added Brown, because the tigers mentioned in the table on page 240, I think, were shot in the same region and in the same period (before 1893). Furthermore, they were measured in the same way ('over curves').

Not all tigers mentioned in the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar are in the tables. Some were excluded because of their age. For more specifics, read the liner notes below every table. If you read both books and find a mistake, please let me know.

Table III:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Table IV:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Table V:

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - Conclusions

1 - The sample is large. It is the largest I know of. This means it most probably is more reliable than other samples. 

2 - The Maharajah of Cooch Behar added a lot of details (referring to body dimensions).

3 - The sample has no extra-long tigers; only 1 male (no. 70) slightly exceeded 300,00 cm. (he was just over 9 feet 10) in a straight line and this was a result of his extra long tail (106,68 cm.).

4 - The sample has 4 short (9 feet or less 'over curves') tigers (no. 26, 32, 37 and 62). Apart from these, 19 others (no. 33, 34, 41, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, 78 and 81) ranged between 9.0 - 9.5 (274,32 - 287,02 cm. 'over curves'). This means they most probably didn't exceed 9 feet (294,32 cm.) 'between pegs'. All in all, 23 males didn't exceed 9 feet in total length 'between pegs'.

5 - The totals of the first table (part I) are significantly higher than those of the second (part II) and the third table (part III). Maybe it was a result of selection and maybe more young adults or immature males were shot later (unclear), but my guess is it was a result of hunting. Total length was affected, but not to the extent many would expect. Robustness was more affected. Tigers shot after, say, 1895, were less robust than those shot 1870-1895. As robustness seems to be related to age, chances are that more younger males were shot after 1895 (unclear). Maybe (over)hunting prevented many males to reach old age.           


c - Tigers measured both 'over curves' and 'between pegs'

The problem with samples of tigers measured 'over curves' is that you never quite know how the results have to be interpreted. The reason is the method can be applied in different ways. In some regions (like the Deccan), tigers were 'loosely' measured 'over curves', whereas they were measured 'in a strict way' in others (like northern India). This means that a tiger of, say, 9.8 'over curves' in the Deccan could be (and very often was) a smaller animal than a 9.8 tiger measured in the same way in northern India. 

This is one of the reasons biologists avoid burning them fingers. It would be easier to just dismiss samples of tigers measured 'over curves', especially when it is known that the measurements were taken by hunters. As some of these were keen on 'records', chances are the method wasn't applied in the correct way. And than there are very important persons who, of course, had to shoot very important tigers. This might have resulted in tapes with 11 inches only. Maybe some hunters measured the skins of the tigers they shot. 

I could go on for some time, but won't. The point to remember is that is biologists and zoologists don't want to be fooled by hunters and Maharajah's. Mazak ('Der Tiger', 1965) was not that careful and published records of Amur tigers of 12 feet and well over. These tigers were as large as a decent male Kodiak brown bear and the result was that poor Mazak was severely punished by his peers. Although the third, revised, edition of his great book still tops my list (with the book written by Heptner and Sludskij), he most unfortunately never quite recovered.

All this to say that I understand why biologists and zoologists avoid samples of tigers measured 'over curves'. They want to be absolutely sure, as the punishment for mistakes (loss of face and reputation) is severe.    

However.

Dismissing samples of tigers measured 'over curves' out of hand just because they were measured in that way in India a long time ago compares to accepting them without any further thought. There are different ways to deal with records of tigers measured in this way. One can read books written by those who measured tigers in both ways ('between pegs' and 'over curves'), one can start measuring tigers himself (as Mazak did), and one can decide for a bit of research and talk to collegues. As far as I know, not one biologist ever perished during a conversation about big cats and methods to measure them. 

I propose to give it a try and my advice is to start with the sample of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar. Before starting, I would read the book of Sir John Hewett ('Jungle trails in northern India', London, 1938 - Natraj Publishers has a cheap reprint). Hewett was as experienced as they come and he measured tigers both 'over curves' and 'between pegs'. When the method most used in his day ('over curves') was applied in the correct way (strict), the difference between a measurement taken 'over curves' and one taken 'between pegs' was 2-5 inches in adult tigers (males and females). For most males (Natraj Publishers reprint, pp. 70), the difference apparently was 2-3 inches only. Were ten-footers included? Yes. But others wrote the difference between both methods could be as much as 12 inches. Also true? Yes. What to make of all that?

The answer is it depends. Every sample is different. Before you start on the measurements, try to find as much as you can about the writer and the way he measured big cats. In order to get there, you have to read many books. In most of them, you will find information you can use. Record every piece of it and try to get to a conclusion. If you can't, leave it. If you can, publish.

The Maharajah of Cooch Behar measured tigers 'over curves'. After the debate on methods in British India in the eighties and nineties of the 19th century, he, in 1898, started measuring tigers both 'between pegs' and 'over curves' (up to 1902). Only 11 of them were measured in that way, but 11 is better than zero. Here's a table with the tigers measured in both ways.

Table VI:

      

*This image is copyright of its original author

Although the average of the 10 male tigers measured 'between pegs' was 276,35 cm. (just below 9.1), most fell (well) short of that mark. One could say the longest tiger (no. 70 in the third table) severely affected the average. The 10 males measured 'between pegs' were a bit shorter than average (referring to the total length measured 'over curves') and not as robust as most others. In spite of that, they only lacked a few pounds. 

The table strongly suggests that male tigers of 9.6-9.7 in total length 'over curves' were about 5,5 inches shorter when they would have been measured 'between pegs'. Not in general, but those shot in the region in which the Maharajah hunted between 1870-1908. 

Although there is some individual variation, the difference between both methods seems to increase with length: the longer the tiger, the more pronounced the difference.

It is, however, very likely that tigers of that length measured in the same way in northern India (and Nepal, I think) would have been a bit longer when they would have been measured 'between pegs'. Confusing perhaps, but this is a result of the way the method was applied in both regions. 


d - Differences between 3 groups

As a result of the wealth of information offered by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, we are able to distinguish between 3 different groups. The first group (a) is all male tigers. The second group (b) consists of male tigers measured both 'over curves and 'between pegs'. The third © has gorged or immature animals only. In order to prevent too many details, I just made a table with averages and range.

Table VII:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The conclusion is the differences are very limited. Gorged tigers (average 512,57 lbs.) were 59,02 lbs. heavier than the others (average 453,55 lbs.). As the last sample (the remaining 46 males) most probably included a few young adults and 1 very old male, the real average (healthy adult males only) could have been a bit higher. Also remember that 23 animals 9.0 or less when they would have been measured 'between pegs'.

Although a trifle shorter than those shot by Dunbar Brander in the Central Provinces (his sample had 42 males, of which 2 exceeded 10 feet in total length 'between pegs'), they were significantly heavier (461,34 lbs. as opposed to 420 in the central Provinces). The conclusion is tigers in northeastern India, well over a century ago, were about average in total length, but more robust.  


e - Skull length of 19 male tigers

The first 7 tigers in the table below were shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam. They averaged 381,73 mm. (just over 15 inches) in greatest total skull length. These 7 tigers, at 493,80 pounds and 307,61 cm. in total length (roughly 290,00-295,00 cm. 'between pegs') were significantly longer and heavier than average. In skull circumference, however, the difference with the others was limited. In other words, skull circumference is an indicator of skull length, but not a strong one. Total length and weight could be more important. As these usually correspond with age, age could be the decisive factor.

The other tigers in the table are from Hawkins (who wrote a letter to the JBNHS with details of two large tigers shot in northeastern India), Eardley-Wilmot ('Life and sport in India', London, 1910) and Hewett ('Jungle trails in northern India', London, 1938). Although 3 of them (no. 10, 11 and 12), skullwise, are shorter than average, the 19 males in the table averaged 375,23 mm. in greatest total skull length. 

The information in this table isn't representative for all male Indian tigers, as nearly all skulls belonged to large animals (the average total length 'over curves' of 17 was no less than 10 feet, whereas one of the other 2 was 10.4 'between pegs' in total length). Most Indian males range between 330,00-380,00 mm. in greatest total skull length (average 350,00-355,00 mm.). The table, on the other hand, also can't be used to dismiss records of large skulls of Indian tigers out of hand. They were not measured by local witch-doctors, but by experienced taxidermists or Forest Officers.

The only skull about which I have serious doubts is no. 19. The reason is Hewett's comment:

" ... Next morning, we found the tiger dead, about sixty yards from where he was fired at. I have never seen a finer tiger. He measured 10 feet 2 inches, and must have been an inch or two longer had the tape been put over him before he had got stiff. He was in his winter coat and perfectly marked. The measurements of his skull as given by Messrs. Spicer & Co., of Leamington, who set up the skin are in their words 'over the bone' as follows: length - 16.25 inches, breadth - 9.7/8 inches, weight cleaned 4 lb. 14 oz. ... " (pp. 180, reprint).

It is about the last part of the sentence in black ('over the bone'). I don't quite know what to make of it, but it could be the skull was measured with a flexible tape that followed the curve of the upper skull. If so, the measurement is invalid. The length of a skull should be measured in a straight line. If the skull, as I now think, was measured following the curve of the upper skull, the real length (measured in a straight line) would have been considerably less. I wouldn't know how much, as I never measured a skull in this way. My guess for now would be that the skull could have been a little over 14 inches in greatest total length. This would explain the moderate width (a zygomatic width of 250,83 mm. does not correspond with a greatest skull length of 412,75 mm.). For more info, go to post 871.

If I'm right, it means that the skull of tiger 08 in table VIII (below) would be the longest about which a reliable record exists.    


Table VIII:
    
      

*This image is copyright of its original author

f - Averages

Although the averages were given in table V, I decided for a table with an overview in spite of that. Please remember the remarks made before: the sample is large (and most probably quite representative); it has 23 males that didn't exceed 9 feet (274,32 cm.) in total length if they would have been measured 'between pegs', and only 1 who, as a result of his long tail, exceeded 9.10 (299,72 cm.) 'between pegs'. It has no exceptional animals, that is.

In total length, they could have been about average. In weight, however, they exceeded males shot in the Central Provinces in about the same period (see Dunbar Brander, 'Wild animals of Central India', London, 1923).  

Table IX:

*This image is copyright of its original author

If we use the information from table IV, the conclusion is that male tigers shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam shot between 1870-1908 most probably averaged about 280,00-281,00 cm. 'between pegs' (head and body 189,00-190,00 cm. and tail 93,00-94,00 cm.). At that length, they averaged 461,00-462,00 lbs. (range 371,00-550,00). Large skulled (and most probably old) male tigers averaged 307,00-308,00 cm. 'over curves' (290,00-295,00 cm. 'between pegs' roughly) and 493,00-494,00 lbs. (Table VI).

The book of the Maharajah has a number of photographs. If these are compared to photographs of today's tigers in that region, today's tigers seem a bit larger. Using the tables in this post, we could say that prime male tigers in that region most probably are at least 9.6 'between pegs' and over 500 lbs. empty. Quite many males seem to have exceptional skulls as well. My guess is some of them will range between 14,5 - 16,0 inches in greatest total length (368,30 - 406,40 mm.). Still a bit shorter than skulls of large lions, but the difference is limited and tiger skulls could be as wide or a trifle wider.
      

g - Selection at the gate 1 (weight)

Even experienced hunters going for exceptional animals agreed it was difficult to contact big male tigers at the best of times, let alone shoot them. Most of the tigers they were after were old, experienced, elusive and wary animals. They seldom accepted baits and were on the move most of the time.

Tigers shot in big hunts in the last decades of the 19th century (like in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam) were not often baited. The one organising the hunt selected a region, collected a number of elephants and hired (local) beaters. Baits were used at times, but in most cases they just entered the district targeted and hoped for the best. In many cases, they shot at everything that moved (cubs included). Some tigers shot in this way were gorged, whereas others were empty. My take is that the averages found do not need to be corrected if the sample is large enough (50 or more).     

It is, however, likely that well-organized hunts like those in the first decades of the 20th century in northern India and Nepal (see my previous posts) would have produced relatively more gorged tigers. The reason is hunting (and the art of baiting) had been developed by that time. The organisers didn't want their guests to go home empty-handed and had the means to achieve their goal. Furthermore, tigers in those regions (like Nepal) often had not been hunted before. For this reason, the averages found for weight have to be taken with some care. This, however, is different from deducting 60-70 lbs. from every sample out of hand. 


h - Selection at the gate 2 (length)

Recent research says quite many of us cheat in some way most of the time. To a degree, of course, but 'every day', most unfortunately, has to be added. Research also says those who have a masters degree in this respect usually are the most happy people you can find. What to say about that?

You can't cheat everywhere all the time, of course. It depends. If you are a scientist, chances are cheating could result in a premature leave and a loss of reputation. If it is discovered, of course. This, however, is the problem. Many of those accused of cheating are confronted many years after the event. If you look for details, you will often find that many of them had powerful enemies. Enemies not interested in integrity per se, but something else. To them, it was a means to an end. Different from acting in the spirit of the law, but there you have it.   

Anyhow. The thing to remember is cheating is part of life for most. How about those hunting tigers and writing books about the size of the animals they shot a century ago?

The answer is nothing can be excluded. But cheating in a field where other are able to check your results to a degree had some risks. If you produced 10-footers at an alarming rate in a region where only few exceeded 9 feet, chances are you would be confronted by problems sooner or later.

Another thing to consider is status. A century ago, positions, apart from those involved in nobility and all the rest of it, were a result of education, quality, experience and, not seldom, age (seniority). This means you often had to work hard for many years to get to the position you wanted. When you had reached your goal, you had a lot to lose. Many would not even have contemplated extending accepted limits. When you, positionwise, had reached the Premier League, honour and things like that came into play as well. All this to say that cheating was not likely in some parts of society back then.

I can hear you say interesting, but what is the connection between this and cheating with measurements? Well, hunting tigers didn't come cheap. Those who could afford it, often operated in the Premier League (the Indian Army included). The last thing they would have wanted was too many ten-footers and gossip about stretched-out skins, 11-inch tapes and things like that.   

Last but not least, there is character. Those involved in serious tiger hunting often were well-trained, experienced and very fit men. Not seldom, they walked hundreds of miles in wild country and scorging heat. Quite many of them met with fate and got hurt at some stage. Talking serious injuries here. In spite of that, only few had to abandon tiger hunting. I read their stories and talked to a few of them. The thing I remembered most is that if you live in this way, fooling yourself is the last thing you want. One reason is your life depends on correct assessments and good choices. Another is fooling yourself could result in loss of self respect. Besides, they didn't really need it. What they did was more than good enough. The last thing that would come to mind when I think of them is cheating. If they say their biggest was 10 feet 4 'over curves' and well over 500 empty, than that is more than good enough for me. I don't need appeasers on the average size of tigers to accept their records. The reason is I feel I know them. 

Today is the day of internet and social media. Although there are many advantages, it also is a fact that quite many have become so involved, that they have more or less disappeared from this dimension. An interesting experiment no doubt, but it also is known that many use the increased social distance between humans (typical for quite many modern humans devoting their life to social interaction, so it seems) to cheat. In capitals, I'm afraid. 

And then there are those using their position and responsabily to create inequality. This although the constitution in the countries in which they, ehh, 'represent' the people says humans have to be treated equal, no matter what. As far as I know, colour, religion, social background, thought (and pysical (dis)ability) were declared irrelevant, but maybe that's just an interpretation. I like constitutions, but their time, so it seems, is past and gone. A great pity.      

To get to the point of this paragraph. Research says that today's humans and cheating are good friends. A century ago, however, things might have been a bit different, especially in the Premier League of society. Those involved in tiger hunting in British India in particular most probably were fair in their descriptions. The main reasons were status and the need for sound decisions. Based on what I read, I'd say that the general attitude of people could have been a bit different back then. Not a few of today's biologists, however, have serious doubts about records of a century ago. This although they use the same method to measure tigers ('over curves') and face similar problems as those who used this, unreliable, method a century ago. The arguments used to dismiss records of, say, a century ago, do not seem based on intimate knowledge of specific samples and those involved in tiger hunting. In many respects, they compare to unsound, if not unfair, mantras based on exceptions. As these still are repeated by many at every possible opportunity, valuable information has more or less been sidelined. A great waste, but there you have it.          

Let me put it in this way. If I was forced to choose between an average Prime Minister (or someone running for President) surrounded by experienced advisors and a nice job in his right hand and an average tiger hunter with an invitation in his left, I would need about 0,2 seconds.  

Nothing can be excluded. Some of those who hunted tigers might have been less than fair. To me, they compare to those I saw when I was working for a friend. Referring to the law and all that. Experience told me you can smell sweat in less than one paragraph. At most. The word to remember is experience. Personal experience. Not prejudice. Or hearsay. 


i - The biggest Indian tigers

The Maharajah of Cooch Behar, compared to Corbett, Hewett and those invited to hunt in Nepal (as will be seen later), wasn't very lucky. The tigers he and his guests shot, however, were anything but small. His average for weight, as far as I know, still is unsurpassed.

Table VI has a male tiger of 10.4 'between pegs' (314,96 cm.) shot in 1946 in Kheri. Although very long, the 9.8 (294,64 cm.) Assam tiger, shot in 1954 and also measured 'between pegs' (about 10.2-10.3 'over curves') was much more robust. I have more records of exceptional male tigers I consider reliable.

There are many posters who have serious doubts about exceptional big cats. I understand, but have to add that I saw a few myself in the facilities I visited. And then there are the documentaries I saw and those who saw or shot them in wild India a century some time ago. It seems best to refer to Sunquist and Dinerstein. Both weighed a male who bottomed a 600-pound scale in Nepal.  

Here's 3 photographs of today's tigers. The first 2 were posted by Roflcopters. The third was posted by PC recently: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
   

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

The photographs show that exceptional tigers still exist. Good conditions, protection, a decent population size, corridors and individual variation will produce a few giants every now and then. The first two tigers are from northern India (not Nepal), whereas the third was found dead recently in Deolapar. The last tiger allegedly had a head and body length of 213 cm., most probably measured 'over curves' (just below 200,00 cm. 'between pegs'). Similar to the Sauraha tiger from Chitwan (Nepal), who bottomed a 600-pound scale. The Deolapar tiger, however, seems a bit more robust. 

There are more tigers of this size in India and Nepal. They were and are few and far between, but they are there. This although the number of tigers is very limited (just over 2000 in India).

Some big male African lions, at least regarding head and body length (and perhaps weight), could be similar, but Indian and Nepal tigers seem to do it more often. Same for skulls, but the other way round: some male Indian tigers probably reach 16 inches in greatest total length or a bit over every now and then, but male lions do it more often.

One last remark to finish the post. Reading the book of the Maharajah wasn't a great pleasure (they overshot some districts and made no exception for tigresses with cubs), but it is a fact that he delivered the largest sample we have. Many won't use the information for the reasons stated above, but dismissing it would be a great waste. This is the reason I made the tables. One day in the future, a table on the size of today's Indian tigers will be published. The tables in this post could be used to compare then and now. Reply