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

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XX


Northern India and Nepal compared to the Deccan


c- Males

The table below has the vital statistics of 131 male Indian tigers and 66 Nepal male tigers. All tigers were shot and measured between 1869-1939:

Table XIX:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - Conclusions

1 - We have to start with the same remark as in the (previous) post on tigresses: measurementwise, the Deccan sample is less reliable than the others. The reason is the tape 'loosely' followed the curves of the body in the Deccan tigers, whereas tigers in northern India were nearly measured 'between pegs'. This means the difference in total length between Deccan and northern India tigers would have been more outspoken when they would have been measured 'between pegs'.

2 - Cooch Behar male tigers, although only 3,3 cm. longer in total length, were 59,34 lbs. heavier than male Deccan tigers. This comes down to 17,98 pounds per cm. The conclusion is that Cooch Behar male tigers were more robust than male Deccan tigers a century ago.

I know the difference in total length would have been more outspoken when all tigers would have been measured 'between pegs'. I also know the Cooch Behar sample had 7 gorged tigers. Maybe the real difference would have been 2-3 inches and 50 pounds, but it still is a significant difference. One also has to remember that the information of others who knew about the size of tigers in Assam was not used. Not a few of these wrote that large male Assam tigers were robust and heavy animals, not seldom reaching 500-600 pounds.

3 - Hewett's sample, for the reasons stated before (see the previous post on tigresses), most probably is the most reliable. This regarding total length. Weight, however, is a very different matter. The reason is the males he didn't weigh were significantly longer than those weighed. As total length and weight are good friends in tigers, and males in particular, chances are the real average was well over the mark in the table (444,46 lbs.).

I had a go at the weight for all and ended up between 460-490 lbs. each time. I propose to use 475 lbs. for now. The average for male Cooch Behar tigers, on the other hand, was a bit inflated because those weighed were longer than those not weighed. For now, I propose to use 450-460 lbs. for Cooch Behar and 470-480 lbs. for northwestern India a century ago.

Confirmed in what we know about today's tigers? Unclear. I do know today's tigers are a bit heavier than those shot a century ago. The difference could be 5-10%, maybe a trifle more. Tigers in northeastern India seem to be different from those in northwestern India. Those in the northwest seem longer and taller, whereas Assam tigers seem to have more vaulted and more massive skulls '('seem' underlined everywhere).  

4 - There's no question whatsoever that Nepal male tigers, and those shot in Chitawan in particular, were longer than anywhere else a century ago. Chitawan is at the extreme east of what is now called the Terai Arc.

Are Nepal tigers really the longest? Of those actually measured, I would get to an unreserved yes. But experienced hunters thought tigers in the extreme northwest could have been as long, if not longer. This observation was confirmed by J.F. Brandt (1856), who based his conclusion on observations made a long time ago. Any confirmation? Well, there's Ranthambore. I also recently got a few photographs of tigers shot in Rajahstan a long time ago (late 19th century). In nearly every photograph, the tigers were long and long-legged. Atypical.

I'm not saying that Northwestern India produced the largest individuals. Tigers exceeding 10 feet 'between pegs' and 600 lbs. have been shot in different regions, but it is about averages. My take for now is tigers in northwestern India could have been similar to those shot in Chitawan (males just under 10 feet 'over curves' in total length). The longest ranged between 10.6-11.2.   

5 - If we remember the first remark, we can conclude there were clear differences between Indian regions. There's no question that northern India and Nepal produced the highest averages (same for skulls). Nepal most probably topped the list for the simple reason that tigers were protected in that region, whereas they were severely hunted in northern India (hunters tend to target the largest individuals).

Tigers in northeastern, central and even southern India, however, might have been relatively more robust. The widest skulls came from these regions and hunters discussing size and methods in the last decades of the 19th century agreed that the stocky fellows often seen in southern India would make short work of their longer relatives up north.     

I'm not so sure, though. The best way to get to good conclusions is to collect reliable information on length, weight and skulls. Large samples (100 or over) are needed. It is a fact that I've never seen a decent attempt and the result is we still have to make do with Pocock. Reply