Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[peter]

(08-20-2014, 09:44 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I have observed and interesting fact from all these images: there is no such thing as an average coat pattern in Bengal tigers!!!

From all those images, some of these specimens looks like Amur tigers, others looks like Indochinese and there is even one that looks like a Sumatran one! This is the reason why Dr Kitchener pointed out the fact that the modern subspecies classification, based in the morphology of a few specimens, is "invalid" and should not be used anymore. The variation of coat pattern in Bengal tigers is huge, just like its size: the largest Bengals are as large as the largest Amur tigers (320 kg) and the smallest Bengals are as small as the smallest Bali tigers (75 kg)!

Now, about this paragraph:
Credit to P. Tigris
"In 1910, Jim Corbett shot a tiger in North India, this one weighed 317 kg (700 lbs).
In the 1930s, Jim Corbett shot the Bachelor of Powalgarh tiger, thought to be "as big as a Shetland pony" by the famous hunter Fred Anderson. This big guy measured 3.23m, as opposed to 3.35m of the 389 kg giant killed in 1967. His book: "Man-eaters of Kumaon". Picture of this tiger shows that its build is on a par with the 1967 giant. This Kumaon district is in northwest India, bordering Nepal to the east. It is where the famous Corbett national park resides. 
In 1942, a large tiger killed in Chitwan, Nepal mentioned by E. A. Smythies in his book "Big game shooting in Nepal": 320 kg, or 705 lbs.
1955: Colonel Kesri Singh observed a tiger killing a big tusker all by itself also in Assam, Northeast India. This deed is recorded in his book “The tiger of Rajasthan” as: "Death by a Thousand cuts". He also stated that all that’s left behind, apart from the huge elephant carcass, are this tiger’s pugmarks which are as big as a dinner plate. This confirmed the shear weight and size of this massive tiger is on a par, or equal with the giant 389 kg tiger killed in North India in 1967. "

There is a myth in the web that Jim Corbett weighed a tiger of 317 kg, but this is false. Corbett did not weighed any of his tigers, and apparently he only measured two of all his hunts. The tiger that weighed 317 kg was hunted by Captain M D Goring-Jones in Central Provinces (Wood, 1977). There is another enormously fat hermaphrodite specimen hunted in the Nilgiri Hills and reported by Fraser (1942), bus this specimen was not weighed and only estimated at 317 kg (Wood, 1977). So, there are two different 700 pound tigers, one actually weighed, the other just estimated and none of them was hunted-weighed by Jim Corbett.

To be sincere, I think that the Bachelor of Powalgarh looks larger than the Guinness tiger of 389 kg, but this could be only my perception. Even then, the fact that the Bachelor was a HUGE specimen most be taken more seriously, after all, even when this male probably measured "only" about 310 cm in total length between pegs, we don't know how much of this is for the tail, so this giant could be as large as the record tiger from Brander (221 cm in head-body), as far we know, and the pictures support my claim.
 



 

In northern India, tigers were measured 'over curves'. Those who wrote about measurements all agreed it was quite a ritual and accuracy was of utmost importance. Sir John Hewett, Dunbar Brander and others all wrote the difference between both methods ('between pegs' and 'over curves') was 2-5 inches in adult male tigers. In most other regions, the difference between both methods was more pronounced.

The hunters mentioned above all hunted with Corbett and all had the same approach regarding measurements. Corbett's Bachelor was 10.7 'over curves'. Mazak (1983) assumed the tiger would have been 305-310 cm. 'between pegs'. However, if we use the differences between both methods mentioned above (2-5 inches), the Bachelor probably ranged between 10.2-10.5 'between pegs'. This means he was at least 310 cm. in a straight line (similar to the Sauraha tiger). Judging from the photographs Corbett published, his tail wasn't exceptionally long or short. My guess is the tiger was well over 200 cm. in head and body straight.

Those who saw him agreed the tiger was very tall as well ('as large as a Shetland pony', one hunter said). We can only speculate about his weight, but Corbett was as experienced as they come and he wrote it was the largest tiger he saw. This in a time when there were much more tigers in India than today.

I agree it is unlikely Corbett weighed tigers (but there's no doubt he measured many). I read all his books and everything written about him and never found a weight.

Sir John Hewett, however, had a weighing machine made in Calcutta and he wrote it was accurate when he used it. The average weight of the males he weighed was between 435-440 pounds about a century ago. It has to be added that his sample had two young adults, if they were adult at all. It also has to be added he wasn't able to weigh all males. Most of these were described as 'heavy' or 'very heavy'. I noticed there was a significant difference in weight between short and long tigers (total length). Long tigers (probably older) were close to 490 pounds. Finally, it has to be remarked that those not weighed were longer than those close to 490 pounds. Not one of the Nepal tigers, quite a bit longer than those shot in northern India, was weighed.

Based on what I knew, I decided to construct another table. The result for all males was 470-490 pounds. Nearly a century later, Sunquist got to 221 kg. for 7 males (adjusted) in Chitwan (Nepal). Very close, that is.

For now, I'd say tigers in Nepal and northern India (like Corbett) could top the list for weight. Kazirangha tigers seem heavier and more robust, but we know nothing about the length of these tigers and the data I have clearly say there is a strong relation between total length and weight in Indian tigers. My guess is tigers in northern India and Nepal could be underestimated as a result of their length and athletic appearance. This is what I found in captive tigers and it could be true for wild tigers as well.

I still have doubts regarding the weight of the Hasinger-tiger shot in Uttar Pradesh, but I am sure some exceeded 700 pounds a century ago. Smythies' record seems more convincing than Gorings Central Indian tiger, because the details do not add up. The conclusion I got to is the Goring tiger probably was very fat. 

I read many books written by hunters. Most agreed tigers in unmolested regions showed more variation (in size, colour and coat) than between regions. There were differences between regions, but these only showed in large samples. There was a marked difference between north- and south India regarding skull, weight, length, colour and stripe pattern, but Nagarahole tigers, as far as I know, always were an exception to the general rule in that they were larger than expected. The most likely reason was south-west India had a lot of wild country and a lot of large prey animals a century ago. They still live in good conditions and it still shows. Not referring to length (I'm not sure if they were measured in a straight line), but weight. I never saw such robust adjustments as in Nagarahole (about 30 kg.) and the males they weighed some decades ago still well exceeded 200 kg. Reply