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

[Roflcopters]

Nepal

In the seventies of the last century, 7 Royal Chitwan male tigers averaged 221 kg. (range 200-261 kg.). Of these, one (the 200 kg. tiger) was a young adult, whereas the heaviest, the Sauraha male tiger, was estimated. They had to, because he bottomed a 500-pound scale when he was an adult and a 600-pound scale when he was a bit older.

The average of Chitwan males (221 kg.) was more impressive than the average of 18 male tigers weighed by Hewett in north India and Nepal about a century ago (197-198 kg.). However. The tigers actually weighed by Hewett were quite a bit shorter than those not weighed. As longer tigers were considerably heavier than shorter tigers in those days (over a 100 pounds), I decided for a calculation of all tigers Hewett shot. The result was about 480 pounds, meaning the difference between then and now was very limited.

I know Hewett's tigers were not adjusted. Same for Sunquists tigers, I think. If we adopt 480 pounds for an average male and deduct 60 pounds (in Cooch Behar, gorged male tigers were 60 pounds heavier than empty tigers of similar length), we get to 420 pounds or thereabout. As this would be as incorrect as not adjusting at all, I propose to take 450 pounds (204,12 kg.) for now to work with.


Nagarahole

There's not that much on tigers in southwest India a century ago. I'm not aware of any average. I do know, however, that those in the know agreed they were a bit shorter than tigers in central and north India. Shorter, but bigger, some said in a debate on methods a long time ago. Any proof? Yes. I posted on Old One Eye, the Wiele tiger and two males shot by Meinertzhagen. Than there's R.G. Burton's book 'A Book on Man-Eaters'. His largest, 9.8 'between pegs', easily bottomed a 500-pound scale. There's quite a bit more suggesting tigers in the southwest were big at times. In the debate I referred to, a very big male shot in southern India was compared to a much longer male shot in Bengal. The longer tiger was dwarfed by the big tiger shot in south India. Than there's the photograph of the tigers shot in Kerala. All this suggests big tigers were there a century ago.

Anything reliable on today's tigers in south India? Yes. There's Ullas Karanth. Three males averaged 298,00 cm. 'between pegs' and 217-218 kg. Adjusted. As big as large males shot a century ago. Anything about averages? No.   

Anything on southern India in general? Those in the southeast, central parts of south India and the Deccan were a bit smaller than  central India tigers, but not much. Exceptions to the general rule, however, were common. There's plenty of reliable records of males reaching and exceeding 10 feet 'between pegs' (up to 10.2).  


Central India

We're familiar with Dunbar Brander's average (420 pounds for 42 males), but there's quite a bit more on central India. Half a century before Brander entered India, Forest Officers trained in the UK made their appearance. For many years, they traveled all over India. At the end of the 20th century, they wrote about the things they saw. To inform the public.

A century and a half later, everything they produced was dismissed. By biologists. And forum owners and posters who probably never saw a wild tiger in their life, let alone hunt one with over a hundred human scalps to his credit. Yes, I was talking about the one who calls himself Taipan and people like him. There are quite many. Just imagine. Well-trained and very experienced men who saw things we will never see dismissed as unreliable crappers by those who probably never leave their screen for longer than a few days. New dimensions in arrogance.

At any rate. Everything I have on central India suggests tigers 100-150 years ago were about similar to today's tigers. Today's tigers, judging from the info on Pench and a few other reserves, seem to be heavier. The reason is a very limited amount of space and severe competition, probably resulting in more all-out's and victims than a century ago. One would expect to see more reports on deadly battles, victims and, as a result, extra-large residents after some decades and we are not disappointed. Wild Indian tigers are the biggest wild cats today, with some individuals bottoming a 600-pound scale. This in spite of very low numbers.

How to grow a giant wild cat from the ground? You breed them in well-protected and well-stocked reserves surrounded by 1.2 billion humans and you do not interfere.

These remarks are not about dismissing the Indians. I think it is quite something that they're willing to make room for tigers. It also has to be mentioned that they managed to counter poachers. I can only get to 'well done' and that would be an understatement. Indians should be proud, I think. Same for the Russians. But it is a fact we're all waiting for the inevitable to happen.        

 
Conclusions 

I agree with Copters in that the difference between then and now most probably is quite limited, at least in north and northwest India. If today's tigers are a bit heavier, it probably is a result of well-stocked reserves, population growth, nowhere to go and plenty of deadly battles. From a distance, India, for tigers, almost compares to a facility breeding gladiators who will perform in the Roman Circus at one day. Only the best and the most tenacious will make it and it will show in size. If the trend continues, captive Indian tigers, one day in the near future, will compare to Sunderban tigers when they're faced with their wild relatives.

Some centuries ago, in northeast China (close to the border with Korea and Russia), there really was an imperial hunting reserve. Not one was allowed in and only the emperor did a bit of shooting every now and then. The animals, protected for centuries, took their chance. Tigers evolved into a large subspecies producing freaks at an alarming rate. But biologists no doubt will produce a more logical reason for the size mentioned in some old books. It starts with adding 'alleged' before size. Than 11 inches per foot are added and Bergman is introduced. Before you know it there's dismissals all over the place. Just joking, of course.

 
Picture gallery

In order to wind it up, a few pictures from then. You're familiar with them, but I want to underline tigers in India produced outsized specimens well before isolation and protected reserves started.


a - Ajanti, central India, 1940

This man-eater really preferred beef, but he was pragmatic and humans were easy to hunt. He was exactly 10 feet 'between pegs'. The weight was estimated at 600 pounds, but part of it was from the ox he consumed close to the road where he was shot. Shot from a cart, just imagine. Him, the giant of Ajanti. My guess was he had lost all respect for humans.

I think 600 was a bit over the top, but it was a robust and heavy-skulled male tiger for sure:  

*This image is copyright of its original author

   
b - Assam, India (Bengt Berg)

The Killer of Men, they called him. He probably was born and raised in Bhutan. When visiting relatives in Assam, he had to take a break to eat. No restaurants. He then decided to take the biggest wild buffalo he could find. No epic struggle followed. It was about applying the right technique. You come from a angle, hook your fingers of one hand under the chin, topple the giant with your other and you pull while you toplle him over. This will result in a broken neck each and every time. At times, Berg found a giant buffalo with his horns nearly vertically buried in the sand. 

Berg could have shot him, but he didn't. He wanted the tiger to pass on his genes. The reason was Berg never saw a tiger even approaching the Killer of Men in size. And he shot one in Bengal of 565 pounds. This means the Bhutan tiger was well over 600 pounds. Berg was amazed at the bulk of the tiger. To us, it's just another male tiger. But he definitely wasn't. This tiger probably was larger than the Sauraha tiger:       

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

I'm not sure, but this could have been one of the buffalo's he killed:

*This image is copyright of its original author

A wild male buffalo, to be sure, can get to 2000 pounds:

*This image is copyright of its original author

c - Central India, source unknown (after WWII)

I've no idea about the size of this tiger, but it was a large animal. Most photographs show a tiger up front and the hunter posing behind him. This will result in a larger than life tiger. In this photograph, however, the hunter is up front. In spite of that, he was dwarfed by the tiger. Have a good look at the skull and than ask yourself why you won't find skulls of this size in museums:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - Kumaon, 1930 (Jim Corbett)

This was the largest tiger Jim Corbett saw. And they were large to begin with in Kumaon, as Carrington (a Forest Officer who wrote a book about man-eaters he shot in that part of India) confirmed. One of the males he shot was just over 10 feet 'between pegs', but my guess is he wasn't as big as the 'Bachelor of Powalgarh'. As big as a donkey, said one hunter after him said when he saw him at close range. But he was larger. At 10.7 'over curves', he probably was at least 10.2 'between pegs'. Said those who had measured tigers both 'over curves' and 'between pegs' in northern India. Similar in size to the Sauraha male, but a bit bigger, I think.

Hewett, before Corbett published, also shot tigers in Nepal. He reported about tigers shot in Nepal. They averaged a bit over 10.2 'over curves' (longest just over 10.5). Very long, probably unsurpassed anywhere in India. Some males no doubt exceeded 600 pounds, just like the tigers weighed by Sunquist and Dinerstein many years later:     

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

e - Central India, Forsyth

Forsyth was as experienced as they come. Year after year, he roamed the forests of India. He didn´t go for extra-large tigers, but stumbled upon them every now and then. The one below, 10.1 'between pegs' and touching 700 pounds (at least), probably was barely able to walk, but obesity didn't prevent him from adding pound after pound over the years.

Cattle tigers were large as a rule, because they thrived on beef. While some forum owners would start dismissing right away, I would like to add that Bazé, in Vietnam, shot a male of 338 cm. 'over curves' (11.1) who was 260 kg. He only hunted the largest wild herbivores. Big is big and big tigers hunt big animals, cattle if available and wild herbivores when not:    

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

f - Central India, Hicks (20th century)

Another report of a Forest Officer who shot a tiger of about 600 pounds with a body girth that would fit a good male brown bear. The tiger wasn´t extra-large, but very heavy:

*This image is copyright of its original author

g - Mysore, Hicks (20th century)

The largest he shot in Mysore, although a bit shorter than the one above, was bigger. This tiger also was bigger than the Sauraha tiger (skull, neck and chest): 

*This image is copyright of its original author

h - Mysore, Wiele (1900-1910)

The Luck Valley tiger. Wiele didn't give the length or weight of the tiger, but it was a very large male who had been known for about 20 years when he was shot. The gun is a Mauser and the tiger was shot between 1900-1910. I added a photograph of 2 men holding the rifle for comparison:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

i - Northwest India, Singh (1937)

I'm not sure, but this could be the 590-pound tiger mentioned by K. Singh:

*This image is copyright of its original author

j - Nepal, Sunquist (1975-1976)

Compare this male (the Sauraha tiger) to what you saw above:

*This image is copyright of its original author

k - Central India

This is Madla, who was estimated at about 250 kg.:

*This image is copyright of its original author

l - Nepal, first decades of the 20th century (the Maharajah of Nepal)

The Maharajah shot different males who reached 10.8 'over curves'. This, I think, could be one of them. He's big as well:

*This image is copyright of its original author

m - Southwest India (Niligiris)

Old One Eye. This tiger, estimated at 700 pounds (after a heavy meal), was 11.0 'over curves':

*This image is copyright of its original author

n - Kerala, source unknown

The male is a very big animal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

o - Assam, early twenties of the last century

Nothing special, many posters said. I think two tigers were special for sure:

*This image is copyright of its original author

p - Upper Burma, Thom (first decades of the 20th century)

This male was 9.8 'between pegs'. Heavier than all tigers he saw (shot) in India, he wrote:

 
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

I could continue for some time, but it would be more of the same. The conclusion is India had large tigers a century ago. In the 19th century, and before 1860 to be more precise, extra-large tigers were more common and they also were larger than the giants of today. This is the conclusion of all who were had experience. I take them way more serious than those dismissing them today. 

That India still produces 10 feet tigers exceeding 600 pounds, in spite of the very low numbers and the lack of gene exchange, tells you something about the Indian tiger.

Small, well-stocked, well-protected reserves and no room to accomodate new tigers will produce survivors and gladiators in the long run. Maybe they will compare to the giants seen in the Imperial Hunting Reserve in northeast China a few hundred years ago, but my guess is the training they get will produce more stocky animals. Athletic, but stocky. 

Another gladiator, the bear, still gets to the size of historic giants, but a cat needs to keep speed and athleticism. If males they average about 450 pounds today, my guess is they could increase to about 480 in the near future. If they average over 500, chances are they will have to sacrifice some of their qualities. Evolution will say no, as a cat is a hunter. Reply