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

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART X


Northern India and Nepal (tigresses)


a - Sir John Hewett ('Jungle trails in northern India', 1938)

In Hewett's book, I found information about 26 tigresses, of which 23 were shot in northern India and 3 in Nepal. Apart from tigress 23 (shot in Janauary 1927), all were shot between 1883-1912. This means they, apart from tigress no. 23, were shot in about the same period as the tigresses shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam.

Talking about Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam. Hewett was invited by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar for a shoot in 1889 (and again in 1894):

" ... In February 1889, I was asked by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Sir Narendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur, to a shoot. The Maharajah was one of the best sportsmen that ever lived. A fine shot, a great naturalist, and a most generous and considerate host, he combined in himself qualities which made him very popular with high and low, English and Indian alike. He had married in 1878 Suniti Devi, the eldest daughter of the religious reformer Brahmananda Keshub Chunder Sen, a most talented lady beloved by all who had the good fortune to know her. The Maharajah died in 1911, and during her life-time his widow lost four of her seven children, of whom two were successively Maharajahs of Cooch Behar. Late in life she lived for some years in England, but returned to India in November 1931, dying at Ranchi. A very remarkable memorial meeting was held at the Caxton Hall on November 28th, 1932, largely attended by the many English friends who survived her.

The Maharajah had a shoot every year, partly in his own State, partly in the reserved forests at Jalpaiguri in the province of Bengal, or on the Brahmaputra and near the foothills in Assam as far east as the Manas river. He had a fine line of elephants and, himself a great shikari, was assisted in managing his shoots by Colonel Alick Evans-Gordon, the Superintendent administring his State, Dick Bignell of the Bengal Police, his private secretary, and a number of very efficient Indian trackers.

An invitation to a shoot at Cooch Behar was something to talk about. The hospitality of the Maharajah was unbounded, life in the tents the ideal of good feeling and comfort, and, most important of all, the sport was bound to be good ... " (pp. 89-90 of the reprint).

This to say that Hewett and the Maharajah of Cooch Behar knew each other well. 

The tigers and tigresses Hewett shot or saw shot in that region (reprint, pp. 91-92), however, were omitted from the tables on northern India. They are in the tables on Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam posted before.

Table X:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This time, weight was expressed in kg. In the summary at the bottom of the table (in yellow), however, weight was expressed in both kg. and lbs. The Nepal averages for length and weight are based on 3 tigresses only, but the average for total length for northern India is quite reliable (n=23). Weight, however, is another matter. Only 7 tigresses were weighed.     

The table has one mistake: tigress 26 (shot in Nepal) isn't mentioned on page 173, but on page 174 of the reprint.

I made two averages for Nepal; one with and one without tigress 26. The decision to leave her out of the second was based on her length: she was so much shorter than the 2 others, that she could have been a large cub or a young adult (2-4 years of age). I could be wrong, though. I know of different tigresses of 8 feet 'over curves' who had cubs when they were shot (in that region) and, therefore, had to be adult.  

The table clearly says that tigresses with cubs, most unfortunately, were shot as well. Tigress 05 in Table X had two cubs when she was shot. One cub was killed, but the other escaped. He was under the observation of forest guards for some time and made a living on small animals. The cub survived and developed into a young adult, only to be shot 3 years later.


b - Conclusions

1 - Compared to those shot in northeastern India (n=35), tigresses shot in northern India (n=23) were a trifle longer (268,47 cm. as opposed to 267,22 cm., a difference of 1,25 cm.). Although they were very similar in total length measured 'over curves', chances are that the tigresses shot in northern India, compared to those shot in northeastern India, would have been a bit longer if they would have been measured 'between pegs' for the reason discussed in the previous post (see the bottom part of that post). How much longer is anybody's guess, but I propose 1-2 inches. If we add the difference mentioned above (1,25 cm.), the real difference (in a straight line) could have been about 2 inches (5,08 cm.).  

2 - The conclusion on total length is based on quite large samples and, for that reason, reliable.

3 - Compared to those shot and weighed in northeastern India (n=11), tigresses shot and weighed in northern India (n=7) were not as heavy (310,55 lbs. as opposed to 291,71 lbs., a difference of 18,84 lbs.).  

4 - The conclusion on weight, as a result of the smallish samples, is not as reliable as the conclusion on total length.

5 - In spite of -4-, it is remarkable that the tigresses shot in northeastern India, although a bit shorther (the 11 tigresses weighed averaged 270,22 cm. in total length) than the 7 tigresses shot in northern India (they averaged 273,23 cm. in total length), averaged 310,55 lbs., whereas the tigresses shot in northern India averaged 291,71 lbs. 

This, to a degree, confirms the conclusion on male tigers shot in northeastern India in that they, although a trifle shorter than those shot in the Central provinces in the same period, were significantly heavier (461,34 lbs. as opposed to 420 lbs.). I know northern India is different from the Central Provinces, but there is no question that the tigers and tigresses shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam were quite heavy for their length.


c - The Maharajah of Bikanir ('A sporting diary', JBNHS, Volume 27)

In the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (Volume 27, Misc. Notes, No. III, pp, 386-391), I found an article based on the diary of the Maharajah of Bikanir. It really is an extract with an introduction written by the editors of the JBNHS. I scanned the article and will post it in some time.

The table below (table XI) is based on the article and has measurements of 7 tigresses and 6 tigers shot in Nepal. To be complete, it has to be stated that table in the article (pp. 390) has not 13, but 17 tigers (7 males and 10 females). One of the 7 males was omitted, because it was a three-quarter grown cub. Of the 10 tigresses, 4 were omitted for the same reason. One of these was a three-quarter grown cub. The other 3 were grown daughters of tigress 06 in the table. Although not small by any means (they taped 8 feet half an inch, 8 feet 3 inches and 8 feet 3 and a half inches), they were still together when they were shot. Furthermore, they were shot in the same beat as their mother on March 31, 1920. Definitely not adult, that is. 

Although I'm not sure, I think the tigers were shot in the southeastern part of Nepal.

Table XI

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - Conclusions

1 - The 7 tigresses averaged 274,14 cm. in total length 'over curves' (range 256,54 - 292,10). This means they were 6,92 cm. longer than tigresses shot in northeastern India (tables I and II) and 5,67 cm. longer than tigresses shot in northern India (table X).  

2 - Tigress 06, at 292,10 cm. in total length, is the longest in the table.  

3 - In skull circumference, however, the 5 Cooch Behar tigresses (tables I and II) topped the list. The difference between them (average 79,88 cm.) and 2 tigresses shot in Nepal (71,13 cm.) was significant (97,5 cm. or 12,30%).

4 - The 6 Nepal males averaged 288,50 cm. in total length 'over curves'. One of them, however, was an old male. This tiger, at 256,54 cm., was well (17,60 cm.) shorter than an average Nepal tigress (...). Without him, the average was 294,89 cm. (very similar to the average of male tigers shot in northeastern India).     

5 - The averages in table XI, as a result of the small samples (6 males and 7 females), are not reliable. Same for the conclusions. This will be shown later. Reply