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

[peter]

(12-31-2017, 02:59 AM)Greatearth Wrote: This Bengal tiger is known as huge (365 cm) as well, but I think size of this tiger is wrong. 
It doesn't even look huge comparing to behind humans. This tiger has to look much bigger since it is much closer from camera. 
Might have been lie to overrated tiger size hunted by upper classes people like viceroy and governor. Or maybe they didn't know how to measure tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

I even found a book saying "Lord Hardinge's tiger was 11 ft 6.5 in. Lord Reading's was 11 ft 5.5 in. Both measurements have been disputed: see Kesri Singh, Tiger of Rajastha (London: Robert Hale Limited, 1959), 33."

Thus, this 351 cm (11 ft 6.5 in) tiger is definitely wrong measurement.

*This image is copyright of its original author

DUNBAR BRANDER ON THE SIZE OF INDIAN TIGERS

A.A. Dunbar Brander ('Wild Animals of Central India' - great book) was as experienced as they come regarding tigers, methods and measurements. In his opinion, the longest Indian tigers could reach 11 feet in total length when measured 'over curves'. This means that an exceptional male, in his day (a century ago), could reach 10.5 - 10.6 (317,50 - 320,04 cm.) in total length when measured 'between pegs'.

I know of two males that exceeded that mark. One of them was the famous tiger shot by Hasinger in northern India in the sixties of the last century. This exceptional male was 10.7 (322,58 cm.) in total length measured 'between pegs' and 11.1 (337,82 cm.) 'over curves'.

BEFORE 1850

Before the rifle was introduced, there were much more tigers. More important was that they often got the opportunity to get to their potential. When the great turkey shoot began in the second half of the 19th century, hunters had no experience with measuring big cats. When they had agreed on a method ('over curves'), reports about 12 feet tigers (measured 'over curves') appeared every now and then. After 1890 or so, when most of British India had been shot over and hunters saw the need for protected reserves and restricted hunting seasons, reports about 12-feet tigers disappeared.

As the disappearance of extra-large tigers coincided with an eruption of books about 'sport' in British India, many took reports about 12 feet tigers shot well before their time with a lot of salt: tapes had been tampered with (a); the method hadn't been applied in the correct way (b); the tiger had been measured by inexperienced villagers working for a landlord who didn't like small tigers ©; they had been too eager (d), or there had been no reliable witnesses (g). In other words: they responded in the same way as people today when confronted with something considered as out of the ordinary.

FACTS

Outlook and prejudice, however, are as unreliable as 11-inch tapes. It is about the facts and it is a fact that people who really knew their business had reported about extraordinary animals in the period in which hunting tigers was still considered uncommon (1820-1860). They hunted in extended and virgin regions where animals had never been hunted before. Regions that still produce tigers of eceptional size today. 

To give you just one example of the effect hunting has on size. In the period 1880-1940, northern India was shot over. In Nepal, tigers were only very seldom hunted in that period. Same region and same tigers, but male tigers shot in Nepal were about 4 inches longer than those shot in northern India. 

I'm not saying that tigers before, say, 1800 were larger than those of today, but it is likely that the sheer number of tigers, the unrestricted gene flow, the pristine conditions and the opportunity to grow to old age would have resulted in a few exceptional animals every now and then. If exceptional male tigers in Chitwan (Nepal) reached 10.9 'over curves' (327,66 cm.) and 705 pounds (319,79 kg.) in the thirties and forties of the last century, male tigers of exceptional size could have exceeded that mark in a period in which tigers were not molested at all. 

HOW TO EXPRESS SIZE

Length is one factor to express the size of a big cat. There are others that could be more important, like weight and skull size.

A century ago, there was a debate about tigers, methods and measurements in what was then British India. Here's part of a letter that was published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS).

The first tiger, although a bit shorter and bulkier, more or less compares to the tiger shot by the Viceroy in 1914. It is about the second tiger, shot in southern India. With a head cirfumference of 3.5 (111,76 cm.), a fore-arm of 2.10 (86,36 cm.) and a chest of 6.1 (185,42 cm.), he was as robust as they come: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

This tiger was shot and measured by someone able to count to 3, meaning the report can't be dismissed. Was it the only exceptional male shot in that period of time in that region? No. I have quite a few reports about very large males shot in southern India. Same for the Central provinces, Assam and the Himalayas.

TO CONCLUDE

Some reports about extra-large tigers are unreliable. No question. This, however, doesn't mean that all reports of experienced woodsmen about exceptional big cats can be dismissed out of hand.

Would-be biologists are trained to be wary of reports about extra-large tigers. The result is that they have been misguided, if not misinformed, by professionals. They found out when they started fieldwork in India and Nepal in the seventies of the last century. 

In that period, they used 500-pound (226,80 kg.) scales. Wild male tigers only very seldom get to that mark in most regions in Asia today, but tigers in India and Nepal are large animals. Not seldom, males bottomed the scale. As a result, biologist were unable to give detaied information about weight. In other words: misinformation resulted in inaccuracy and confusion.

In order to prevent more problems, 600-pound scales were introduced. Still inadequate. In Nepal, two male tigers bottomed that scale in the eighties of the last century.

One of the male tigers that bottomed a 600-pound scale was known as the Sauraha tiger. The last time he was darted, he drowned in a pool. My guess is he was weighed after he had drowned, but I'm not sure about that. Anyhow. He bottomed a 600-pound scale. 

Some biologists didn't believe the report on the weight. Yamaguchi and Kitchener said it wasn't clear if the tiger had been baited. This although they knew that the tiger had a collar (...). Maybe the real weight was as low as 500 pounds or less less, they said. I'm not making this up.  

My advice is to go on your own. Every time you read a book in which an extra-large big cat features, try to find as much as you can about the writer, the tiger and the circumstances. Use your common sense and your training. In order lo learn about size and measurements, go to a facility or a zoo. Measure and weigh captive big cats if possible. Talk to people in the know. Visit natural history museums and measure skulls. If you doubt a report, contact your friends over here. And forget about 'accepted' standards. Reply