Brander, Hewett and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar: a review to the records

[Enderr]

(04-01-2014, 11:19 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: I made this new topic because I made a review to all the weights and sizes from these three hunters and naturalist of the first part of the 19 century. Besides, it is fair to say that the records of these three men present the largest samples and series of measurements of all times, given the only reliable clips about the real spectrum of sizes that the tigers can present.

The point is also to compare the figures that I obtained with those of peter, because when I made my review, none of the averages or ranges match with those of him.

Let’s begin the investigation in order the set the final figures that will be used in the future.

---

Dunbar Brander (1923) Wild Animals in Central India:

There is not much to say about him. He presents his records in a clean form, no interpretation, just the average, ranges and sample sizes. Here are the images:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

It is interesting to see that the figures that he proposes are for “gorged” tigers, however he also say that although he used only those that he classified as adults, he confess that this is a very hard work and that at the end, that classification is a plain “guess”. In this case, many juveniles’ specimens were included in his sample, but this will help to balance the averages that could be inflated by the gorged specimens. The figure of 420 lb. (190.5 kg - males) and 290 lb. (131.5 kg – females) would represent, in this case, the average of more or less empty belly tigers, thanks to the inclusions of young specimens.

Among all the length records, the longest tiger of Brander (10 ft 3 in – 313 cm) represent the forth longest male tiger measured between pegs, apart from the record tigers of Gerard Wood (1978), which measured 323, 322 and 320 cm between pegs. However, his largest tiger was not the longest just because its tail was cut off. This huge male measured 7 ft 3 inn (221 cm) in head-body between pegs, been the largest wild cat ever measured, and only surpassed by the great prehistoric felids. If this giant could have a tail of 113 cm (the tail recorded for the Sauraha male), it would measure 333 cm between pegs. This male is practically of the same size (if not slightly larger) than the largest male Amur tiger hunted by Jankovski (quoted by Mazák).

In the case of Brander, everything in already written, explained and we can use it safely. :sleepy:

---

John P. Hewett (1938) Jungle Trails in Northern India: Reminiscences of Hunting in India:

These are the best records from the northwest area of India. This was the region where Jim Corbett lived and where the famous Bachelor of Powalgarh made its domains.

Hewett was a great hunter and naturalist, but he don’t present all his records in a single form, he gives the list of his largest ones but all the other are scattered through the book. In this case, I used the images posted by peter and Bold champ, in order the get the full list of specimens presented by Hewett in his book. Here are all the original images:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Note: the post allows only 10 images for post. The next images will be in my next post.

Based in all these weights, I constructed the following tables (preliminary) for male and female tigers:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The average weight for males was of 202.1 kg (n=19; range 165.6 – 258.5) while that of females was of 139.4 kg (n=7; range 117.9 – 157.4). This surprises me because the figures of peter are completely different. Here is the comparison:

Me (2014): Males - 202.1 kg (n=19; range 165.6 – 258.5).
Females - 139.4 kg (n=7; range 117.9 – 157.4).
From peter: Males - 197.6 kg (n=18; range 161.0 – 258.5).
Females – 132.9 kg (n=8; range 113.4 – 157.4).

My first thought was that I was wrong and I copy again all the records, this time manually and latter I compare them with those of my excel sheet. The result was clear: I had not repeated any record and I have not found in any part the weights of the smallest specimens (355 lb for the male; 250 lb for the female).

About the female, the sample of peter is larger, so it is possible that Bold simple don’t found the record and didn’t take a picture of it. However, for the male tigers, my sample is larger and I highly doubt that Bold would lose the opportunity to show such a small specimen. My guess is that in the case of the male, maybe peter misquotes the figure of 365 lb, while in the case of the female I think that Bold slipped that figure in his pictures. Take in count that this is just speculation, and peter is the only one that could clarify those records.

It is interesting to see that if we take only the specimens over 170 kg (the male of 368 lb was a cub with his sister; the male of 365 lb had porcupine quills in its back), the average will be of 209 kg (n=16), slightly higher than the records of Cooch Behar (excluding the gorged or full of beef specimens). If we include the male of 355 lb, the average would be of 200 kg (n=20).

It seems that the tigers from the northwest India had average figures of no less than 200 kg for males and 130 kg for females. However, I need the help of peter in order the set the official figure in this area. About the total length (which is the only measurement presented by Hewett), I am not interested as it was taken over curves. So, in that case, I would only copy-paste the figures of peter.

---

Here are the other images from Bold:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

He posted 14 images in total.

hey Guate what a wonderful research, may I know if the tigers from hewett 1938 were adjusted or no? If they were adjusted then can you provide a proof for that because the book says in the test the tigers gorged themselves. Reply

[Charger01]

Pretty old thread, but I found this video of Tiger hunt organised in early 1900s
 

This tiger seems very familiar, I have seen a pic of a tiger being loaded on an elephant by a bunch of people. This is maybe that
It can also be the 311 cm tiger shot in nepal in late 1800s, and required 14 men to be moved. Again, not sure Reply