Nepal tigers

[peter]

A year ago, in the tiger extinction thread, I posted 19 tables on the size of Indian and Nepal tigers shot about a century ago. Most tables had individual entries only. The samples were large, meaning the averages are reliable. And impressive. So much so, that one poster complained about what he described as a 'selection'. The tables, however, were not a result of selection: every measurement of Nepal tigers shot before, say, 1940 was included.

The conclusion was that Nepal tigers, at the level of averages, could have been among the longest (referring to total length measured 'over curves') anywhere. It is because of their length that many of them, like the tiger in the second picture you posted, seem quite athletic. Same for the Sauraha male tiger, who first bottomed a 500-pound scale and, a few years later, a 600-pound scale. Undoubtedly a big tiger, but the photographs showed a well-built animal, not a tank.

Today, Nepal tigers (about 200 or so) are protected. The result is more tigers and more individual variation. Sunquist and Dinerstein both mentioned a male who bottomed a 600-pound scale. If we add recent photographs, the conclusion is that some Nepal tigers operate in the heavyweight division. Not saying all of these big tigers would bottom a 600-pound scale, but I sometimes wonder if even a scale with a capacity of 700 pounds would do.

In order to show you what I mean, I included the Sauraha tiger one more time. Although quite long (10.2 'over curves' or, based on the descriptions offered by Sunquist, about 9.10 'between pegs), he wasn't longer than many males shot by, for example, Sir John Hewett nearly a century ago and the Maharajah of Nepal in the thirties of the last century. The surprise was in the weight. He bottomed a 600-pound scale, although he seemed far from obese:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Although large, the Sauraha tiger was not as large as the big tiger in this photograph:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This one (far right) was 6 inches longer and definitely compared for robustness:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The measurements of the tigers shot by the Maharajah of Nepal and his guests shot in the thirties of the last century are dismissed by many. This although Smythies, who used the diaries of the Maharajah for his book 'Big game hunting in Nepal' (1942), underlined that the measurements had been taken with care. All tigers had been measured by the same team.

An average adult male from Nepal was very close to 10 feet 'over curves' in total length a century ago. In Chitwan and the eastern part of Nepal, the average was (well) over that mark. One of the giants shot in Nepal in the thirties of the last century was 10.9 'over curves' and 705 pounds. Another male of that length also was a robust animal. According to Smythies, he wasn't the only one. 

Some decades later, a professional hunter operating in the southwestern part of Nepal also described Nepal tigers as long, with a short tail and a large head ('Hunting in the mountains and jungles of Nepal', P. Byrne, 2012). In the seventies of the last century, Sunquist underlined that Nepal tigers were long and heavy.   

As for the photographs you posted.

The last tiger in your previous post, apparently from Chitwan, is a large and robust individual: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

The first photograph in your last post, however, shows a bulky male:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Nepal has plenty of males just under or over 400 pounds, but most of these are either youngish or old. A prime male in good health can exceed 600 pounds and, at times, even 700. The male in this photograph has an oversized skull and is built like a tank. It's chest is of such dimensions, that the legs seem too short. It might not show, but this could be another male similar in size to the Sauraha male tiger. Reply