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

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XI


Northern India and Nepal (male tigers)


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

In his interesting book discussed before (see the previous 2 posts), I found information on 40 male tigers I consider reliable. Of these, 35 were shot in northern India. The other 5 were shot in Nepal. With the exception of tiger 35 (shot in January 1927 by his daughter), the tigers in northern India were shot between 1883 and 1912. The 5 Nepal tigers were shot between 1908 and 1912.

The book, to be complete, has more measurements of male tigers, but these were omitted for different reasons. The male mentioned on pp. 43 (reprint) was measured 'between pegs'. The tiger mentioned on pp. 59 also was omitted, because it isn't clear in what way he was measured. The measurements on pp. 91-92 are from tigers and tigresses shot in another region. Measurements and weights of cubs and immature animals (pp. 133, 136, 139 and 150) also were omitted.

Tiger 29, most probably a young adult, however, was included in the table. Same for tigers 26 and 27, who had been incapacitated, but seemed in good condition. These 3, however, were shorter than average and well below 400 lbs.        

All tigers in table XII were measured 'over curves'. As they, apart from tiger 14, were measured by Hewett himself or by those who measured tigers in the same way, we have to deduct not 5,45 inches (like in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam), but 2-3 inches to get to the total length measured 'between pegs'. For more information, I advice to read the previous posts. 

Table XII:

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - Remarks 

1 - Tiger 02 was " ... a monster. It took fourteen men to pull him out of the steep nulla at the bottom of which he lay ... " (pp. 82).

2 - Tiger 06, at 10 feet 5 and a half inches in total length, was the biggest Hewett ever measured.

3 - Tiger 26 was a bit shorter and not as heavy as most others. He had been severely incapacitated, but seemed in good condition: " ... it turned out that he had been wounded in the jaw some time before, both of his lower canine teeth having been shot away and part of his tongue cut off. It must have been very difficult for him to get his food, but he was not in bad condition and had a most lovely coat and ruff ... " (pp. 140).
 
4 - Tiger 30 was a large one. Hewett wrote " ... I was not able to weigh him, but he must have been about five hundred pounds. Quite recently, he had killed a bear. The forest guard had a theory that he jumped on the bear's back from a point of vantage ... " (pp. 149).

5 - There is a mistake in the remark on tiger 31. It said this tiger (no. 31) was taller and younger than tiger no. 35. This has to be 'tiger no. 30'. 
 
6 - Tiger 35, shot by his daughter Lorna, was measured the morning after he had been shot. Hewett wrote " ... I have never seen a finer tiger. He measured 10 feet 2 inches, and must have been an inch or two longer had the tape been put over him before he had got stiff. He was in his winter coat and very perfectly marked. The measurements of his skull as given by Messrs. Spicer & Co., of Leamington, who set up the skin, are in their words 'over the bone' as follows: Length - 16,25 inches, Weight cleaned 4 lb. 14 oz. ... " (pp. 180).

This is the longest skull of an Indian tiger that I know of, but I wonder about the part " ... over the bone ... ". The length of a skull has to be measured in a straight line. My guess is this skull was measured in a different way. Maybe 'over the bone' means 'over the curve of the skull'. This would explain the moderate weight and the lack of width.

I have no clue as to the real greatest length in a straight line, as I never measured a skull 'over the curve'. There is, I think, no question that the skull was not 16,25 inches in greatest total length in a straight line. My guess for now would be just over 14 inches.        

7 - As to the scale used to weigh the tigers in the table. Hewett wrote " ... I had a weighing machine made at Calcutta at the end of April 1908, and used it intermittently to weigh a number of tigers and tigresses and some leopards, but it was not always in good order, and I had often to send it away for repairs. As a result, though I was able to weigh some very good tigers, chiefly in 1909 and 1910, I only had it available twice when a 10-foot tiger was in the bag, and, finally, as the machine was going out of action so often, I did not bother to have it repaired ... " (pp. 72-73).  
 
8 - Tiger 34, although average in total length, was the heaviest by a margin. There are no details about this tiger. Hewett, however, wrote that the region in which he was shot was different from the northern part of the UP: " ... The jungle in the Mirzapur district is quite different from that in the northern part of the United Provinces. There are none of the swamps and big savannahs, such as exist at the foot of the Himalayas, and no sal forests. The country is very like certain parts of the Central provinces. It is very hilly and there are a number of small rivers ... " (pp. 161).   

9 - One more to finish this paragraph. It's about a tiger cub stung to death by bees or hornets: " ... In the reserved forest near Amangarh we found a tigress with three small cubs, of which we succeeded in capturing one, a female to which we gave the name of Tilli. She was a delightful little creature, and was most agreeable in her bamboo cage except when she was given a feed of the liver of sambar or spotted deer, when she would roar like a grown-up animal. We had every hope of making a real pet of her. But unfortunately this was prevented by a tragedy a short time after. We were going to ride up the hill next day from Kaladhungi to Naini Tal, and send her on in advance. The syces coming down the hill with our ponies succeeded, by smoking, in disturbing large numbers of bees, and probably hornets, near one of the halting grounds. The men taking Tilly uphill stupidly stopped there, and she was violently attacked and stung to death. The poor little thing succumbed just as she arrived at Naini Tal ... " (pp. 122).

Table XIII:

*This image is copyright of its original author

c - Conclusions

1 - Male tigers shot in northern India about a century ago averaged 297,18 cm. 'over curves', or 9.9 exactly. If we follow the advice of Hewett and deduct 3 inches, the average total length measured 'between pegs' would have been about 9.6 (289,56 cm.). This corresponds very well with the information I have on male tigers measured 'between pegs' in that region.

2 - The average for total length, as a result of the sample size, is reliable.

3 - Male tigers shot in northern India a century ago were (297,18 cm. - 294,84 cm.) 2,34 cm. longer than male tigers shot in northeastern India in the same period. If all males would have been measured 'between pegs', however, the difference most probably would have been more pronounced (about 9.6 in northern India as opposed to 9,25 or thereabout in northeastern India).

4 - Male tigers shot in northern India (n=15) averaged 433,27 lbs. (196,53 kg.). Although this average should be moderately reliable, my guess is it is not. The reason is the 15 male tigers actually weighed averaged 292,61 cm. (range 276,86 - 306,06), whereas the 20 males not weighed averaged 300,61 cm. (range 284,48 - 318,77). As it is known that the correlation between total length and weight is quite strong in adult male Indian tigers, the conclusion is those not weighed most probably were significantly heavier. I tried to to an average for all more than once. The average I got to in each attempt ranged between 460 and 490 lbs. For now, I propose to take 475 lbs.  

5 - The 53 male tigers weighed in northeastern India averaged 461,34 lbs. (209,26 kg.). At 295,46 cm. in total length 'over curves' (n=51), however, they were longer than the 38 males not weighed (293,00 cm.). They were also longer than the 15 males weighed in northern India (see -4-). If all males in northeastern India would have been weighed, the average most probably would have been a bit lower than the average found (461,34 lbs.), whereas the average in northern India, if all males had been weighed, definitely would have been well over 460 lbs. My guess for now is that male tigers in northern India, a century ago, would have been heavier than male tigers in northeastern India. The main reason, I think, would be total length. If all had been measured 'between pegs', the difference between male tigers in northern India and those in northeastern India most probably would have been about 3 inches. 

Also remember that the sample for northern India has 1 severely incapacitated male (tiger 26) and 1 young adult male (tiger 29). Without them, the average for length would have been 298,18 cm. (n=33), whereas the average for weight (n=13) would have been 444,46 lbs. (201,61 kg.).      

6 - Nepal tigers were a bit shorter than those shot in northern India, but heavier. One of the 5 males (tiger 37 in table XII) disappeared into a cave with a female during the beat (pp. 171). As this is unusual for a male courting a female, I concluded that both tigers could have been immature and, possibly, even related. Without him, the average total length for the remaining 4 males is 298,45 cm. and 487,50 lbs. As a result of the sample size, however, both averages are unreliable. Reply