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

Options

peter

Co-owner of Wildfact

2,603 Replies

34 Topics

Joined: Mar 2014

Reputation: 52

#854

10-29-2015, 09:46 PM

(10-29-2015, 05:02 AM)Shardul Wrote: I read man eaters of Kumaon a few years back and in that Jim Corbett mentions the Bachelor of Powelgarh measured 10'7" meaning it was the biggest tiger he shot. Another tiger called the Pipal Pani tiger was 10'3". He also shot a few more tigers over ten feet. All were over curves. So I think the maximum length of a tiger should be 10'6" over curves or a little over 10' between pegs.

Corbett also says that tigers of kumaon (present day Corbett National Park) reached 10' more often than tigers in other parts of India. Maybe that is where the talk of tigers from Northern areas being bigger than those from other parts originated. Interestingly he never weighed any tigers nor mentioned weight of any tiger anywhere. I find it surprising that he would take so much pain to measure carefully several times the tigers he shot, just to make sure he didn't make any mistakes in his measurement. But never actually weighed them. It's not like the tigers were left where they were shot, they were lifted and transported, so why not weigh them?

@peter,

Do you know why it was always length that was the yardstick for size and not anything else, in the hunter records?

1 - THE LENGTH OF TIGERS

I agree with Corbett that tigers in northern India (and Nepal) most probably were a bit longer than those in other parts of India. Although tigers of 10.0 and over (measured 'over curves') were rare even in Hewett's day (1880-1930 roughly), there is no question some well exceeded Corbett's longest (10.7 'over curves'). Inglis mentioned one of 11.1 and he wasn't the only one. Tigers of 10.8 and 10.9 (also measured 'over curves') were shot in Nepal more than once. Also remember the posts on Knowles in this thread. He mentioned different large tigers also shot in that region. The longest of these was 10.6. Although I thought the tigers he mentioned were measured 'over curves', I could have been wrong. The reason is most of the shooting parties he joined were organized by Forest Officers. They were the ones who measured the tigers shot and most of them measured tigers 'between pegs'.

Carrington, a Forest Officer who was stationed in Kumaon well before World War Two, shot a number of tigers in that region. The longest he shot was just over 10 feet 'between pegs'. The others he shot ranged between 9.5-9.6 (also measured 'between pegs'). And then there is the famous Hasinger tiger. Although I doubt the weight (allegedly well over 800 pounds), there is no doubt it was a very long tiger (11.1 'over curves').

Tigers shot in other regions in the same period (1880-1930) didn't produce very long tigers as a rule, but there were exceptions. There is plenty of evidence that tigers shot in central parts of India reached 10.0 and just over (up to 10.4) measured 'between pegs' (tigers in central India usually were measured 'between pegs'). Most of these were very heavy as well. Read the posts on Forsyth and Hicks in this thread. Also remember the posts on the Wiele tiger and 'Old One Eye' (Nilgiris). The last one was 11.0 'over curves' and very heavy.

Many years ago, there was a debate between hunters on the method used to measure tigers. Some of them provided records of exceptional tigers. Although all had been measured 'over curves', there was no doubt some very massive animals with chests well exceeding 5 feet. The general conclusion was tigers in northern India were longer, whereas those in central and southern parts of India were more massive (as well as more dangerous).

Here's a few scans posted before.

a - Hicks (the tiger was 9.9 measured 'between pegs'):

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - Hicks

The tiger below was shot in Mysore. Skull circumference 42 inches and chest circumference 64 inches. The tiger was not weighed:

*This image is copyright of its original author

c - Hawkins

In his letter to the JBNHS, he compared a very large tiger he had shot in Assam with one shot in the Kheri forests:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The information I have (sample large in all regions) clearly says tigers in northern India and Nepal were longer than those shot in other regions. They were also heavier. In females, this conclusion was even more pronounced.

2 - LENGTH AS A YARDSTICK

I agree length isn't the best way to express size. At least, not in lions. Short lions can be every bit as impressive as long ones, if not more. In tigers, however, total length, I think, could be one of the best yardsticks. The reason is long animals usually also are more developed, more muscular and heavier as a rule. There are, of course, plenty of exceptions, but length most certainly is one of the best.

I don't know why length became the most important yardstick, but it is way easier to carry a tape than a scale when you're hunting. A century ago, scales were few and far between. Furthermore, they were heavy, difficult to move and had as tendency to break down. Sir John Hewett had a scale made in Calcutta, but it broke down more than once. In the end, he decided against new repairs. This is why only 18 males were weighed. Today's biologists have more reliable scales, but they still are difficult to move and to handle. For some reason, they also keep selecting scales unable to weigh large tigers. This is why they were unable to determine the weight of two Nepal Giants.

Weight, in my opinion, also isn't indicative for the size of a big cat. A tiger with a cough can lose a hundred pounds before you know it and when he is apprehended after a large meal the weight you find also isn't representative. Circumstances also have a severe impact.

Some thought the size of the skull would be a more reliable yardstick. But is it? Two large male Amur tigers captured by Mordon and Graves were 480 and 550 pounds, but both had short and narrow skulls (well below 350 mm. in greatest total length). Tiger Raja is a very muscular animal with at least two scalps to his credit, but I would be surprised if he got to the average for a male in India (350-355 mm. in greatest total length). The very large tiger shot by Hewett's daughter (Hewett wrote it was one of the best he had seen) had a very long skull (412 mm. in greatest total length), but it was relatively narrow and about as heavy as the skull of an Indian tiger I measured. That skull, most probably (the occiput was destroyed), would have struggled to exceed 360 mm.

Eardley Wilmot, regarding indicators of size, also gave it a shot:

*This image is copyright of its original author

All measurements, I think, were taken 'between pegs'. Although I'm not sure, there seems to be a correlation between total length and greatest total skull length. Notice in particular the size of the skulls of the two females. Eardley Wilmot thought size was best expressed in skull width, but he was the only one who did.

In order to get to an opinion on size, one needs as many parameters as possible. Total length, head and body length, skull circumference, neck, chest and, most of all, fore-arms. Weight, in my opinion, is less important.

This is the male Amur tiger in the Tierpark Berlin. One of my very first photograph's (I recently got a camera and don't quite know how to use it) it was and I'm quite happy with it because it just about equals my opinion on this tiger. He was from the Moscow Zoo and, most probably, a direct descendant of a wild Amur tiger. He was very tall, long and had a oversized skull and big fore-arms. One of the largest I saw and very athletic, but he would struggle to get to 500 pounds: