There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
04-03-2014, 07:12 AM( This post was last modified: 04-03-2014, 10:38 PM by peter )
Many thanks for the tables and the excellent information, Guate. The averages of your tables are similar to those I found. For now, we can conclude Indian tigers in the recent past (about a century ago) showed regional differences in size with tigers in the south-east and the Deccan somewhat smaller than those in northern India and, in particular, the north-east (Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam).
Hewett's tigers were not as heavy as those in Cooch Behar and Assam, but we have to remember his sample was smaller. Furthermore, the tables we made apparently had a number of immature animals and/or young adults. Finally, Hewett wrote he wasn't able to weigh many animals. Most of these (12 out of 22) were described as 'heavy' animals.
Based on what I saw in the tables I made (long tigers significantly heavier than short tigers, which could be a result of age), I concluded tigers in northern India and Nepal (referring to Hewett), about a century ago, most probably were a bit longer (roundabout 2 inches in total length, measured 'over curves') and at least as heavy as those in the north-east (referring to the Maharajah of Cooch Behar), if not heavier. The information I found in other books published well before WW II confirmed the conclusion I got to.
It would be interesting to compare the averages of tigers a century ago with today's average, but this is difficult as a result of a lack of reliable data. The information available suggests today's tigers seem to be a bit longer and 5-10% heavier.
The tables I made some years ago were based on the books you mentioned and used. In the past two years, I read many other books. The database I now have is about twice as large (well over 400 adult male wild Indian tigers as well as about 200 adult wild females). I didn't get to a new table yet, but I think the conclusions regarding regional differences in size (referring to India) will be confirmed.
Same for skulls. Pocock (1929) concluded skulls of tigers in northern India were a bit larger than those of tigers in central and southern India. His conclusion was confirmed by what I found in different books and articles. His sample was limited, but mine (skulls of wild adult males only) is quite large (>100).
Most unfortunately, I'm not able to post photographs, tables or pages yet. The main problem is I do not know how to get into the albums I stored in Photobucket and post the images I want to use when writing a post. The system is different than the one I used before. I need a bit of time.
Brander, Hewett and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar: a review to the records
