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

[Pckts]

(06-02-2015, 11:01 PM)'peter' Wrote:

(06-02-2015, 09:27 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:

(06-02-2015, 05:48 AM)'peter' Wrote: First a question. I assume you are aware of the fact two tigers were discussed in the last posts? The man-eater shot near the Godavary River in December 1912 (the 9.9 tiger of 416 lbs.) and the 9.1 tiger shot in February 1924 northern India? Yes? Ok. Just checking.

As for the 9.9 Godavary River tiger of 416 lbs. I have no idea how he was weighed. If you have two scales of 300 and 200 lbs. and the tiger bottoms the largest scale, different methods can be used to get to a result. I could describe a few, but Burton didn't say how he did it. I assume he had good reasons. What I know is he had two scales, of which the 300 lbs. scale was tested before and after use. It was accurate.

One more thing. Mistakes and cheating just wasn't done in those days, especially when it was about India and tigers and officers were involved. I've read countless debates and the one thing that stuck was cheating wasn't even considered. The reason was honour. Even a minor mistake could mean loss of face and curtains. I've posted time and again about the debates on methods, tapes, accuracy and sportsmanship in magazins and newspapers. In nearly every old book, there is a chapter on methods, measurements, accuracy and records. It really wasn't about that, but about the rules of conduct. This is the reason I prefer them old boys over all others when it is about measurements, methods, accuracy and records.  

Most posters, educated amateurs and biologists, however, dismiss old records are unreliable crap. They only trust records of today's biologists. But nearly all debates about big cat size on forums are about (the interpretation of) records of today's biologists. This should tell you something.

Let's take Packer. He knows so much about lions, that he's only able to communicate about them with the Lion Spirit. For him, knowledge is about the spiritual dimension. If he was to write a book about lions, it would be about that. Packer will probably die studying lions in Africa, but he has no clue as to methods and measurements. The reason is he is just not that interested. But the boys in India were, back then. It nearly was a matter of life and death for them.

If Burton says the Godavary tiger he shot in December 1912 was 9.9 'between pegs' and 416 lbs., than that's more than good enough for me.



 

Yes, I was just asking about the 416lb tiger, because he had quite large forelimbs and chest girth but it was an estimation I assume if neither scale were capable of weighing above 300lb.

In regards to the 9.1 Tiger from 1924, is that the one on the cover?
He looks like a robust tiger, where there any weights or measurements attached to him?
If you already posted them, my apologies.



 

A - the Godavari tiger shot in December 1912

The 416 lbs. man-eater was a male who, according to Burton, would have taped 10 feet 'between pegs' if he would have been measured directly after death. The tiger was shot when he returned to his kill at about midnight and was measured and weighed the next day. I can confirm that different hunters (J. Hewett and B. Berg) wrote a tiger measured a day after he was shot is about 3 inches shorter than he would have been directly after death. This is a result of rigor mortis.

Also remember the tiger was shot some months earlier. They found a bullit in his jaw. The tiger survived, but his left upper canine, probably also hit by the bullit, was nearly gone and Burton found the cavity loaded with maggots. He thought the tiger, as a result of his injury, would have been unable to eat fresh kills. This would have resulted in a loss of weight and a bad condition.

The weight wasn't a guesstimate. The tiger was 416 lbs. exactly. A bit below expectation considering his head and body length and the girth of his chest and limbs, but my guess is it was a result of his injury. How get to an accurate weight when the tiger bottomed the capacity of the scales Burton had? You cut the tiger in pieces and weigh each part seperately. This is what they did with gaurs, buffalo's and elephants.


b - The northern India tiger shot in February 1924
 
The tiger shot in northern India isn't on the cover of the book based on the diaries of Col. R.W. Burton. He is on the second scan in that post. The tiger on the cover of the book is another animal. You could have known, as the photograph is way better than the photograph taken in 1924.

The tiger shot in February 1924 in northern India was 6.4 in head and body. If we add the 2.9 tail, the result is 9.1 in total length 'between pegs'. Measured 'over curves', he was 6 inches longer (9.7). The tiger wasn't weighed, but his chest circumference was 4.7 (139,70 cm.), or about similar to the Sauraha male tiger who drowned in a pool in Nepal when he was darted. The tiger shot in 1924 wasn't weighed, but it was a massive animal. More info in the JBNHS, Vol. 30, pp. 652-656 ('An encounter with a fighting tiger').

 

Yes I meant the 2nd image with the hunter standing behind him.
He looks like quite a robust specimen, definitely seems to be in the Sauraha male category.

I know the chopping up method is used for the guar I'm curious as to its accuracy, I'm sure its close. I do notice they allocate blood and other fluid loss in the guar so I assume they do the same for the tigers. I wonder how much they do and if its accurate or not, but either way Im sure its not going to make much of a difference. I imagine if that tiger didn't have a bullet lodged in its jaw and was infected you would no doubt see a good sized tiger.
Amazing how large the guar were, btw.
They are massive boys


  Reply