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

[peter]

WAVERIDERS

You, to keep it short, said

a - Smythies, in the last stage of his career, got an offer he couldn't refuse. Grateful for the offer, he served the Maharajah to the best of his abilities, which resulted in a servile attitude throughout the book. 

b - Most records in his book are directly from the hunting diary of the Maharajah, meaning Smythies wasn't there himself until 1940, when the Maharajah was nearly done shooting. This means his book can't be regarded as a primary source. 

c - The information on extra-large tigers in his book is very limited: there are no photographs, there are no body dimensions, there is (apart from the record tiger) no information on weight and there are no skull measurement. Not enough, therefore, to be taken seriously by his peers (like Dunbar Brander) and not enough to be taken seriously by biologists. 

d - All in all, the records are only interesting for those who are prepared to look the other way.

I agree on all points made. Below, I will discuss a few points that made me conclude the records are interesting in spite of that. You could say they could be headed under circumstantial evidence:

e - Smythies was a well-educated and experienced Forest Officer with a reputation. Although he wasn't present when the tigers were shot and measured, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you would ask me if I would be prepared to include the measurements in a table intended for the book, the answer would be yes. But the table would be in the lowest category regarding reliability.

f - Hewett also hunted in Nepal. The measurements he provided are close to those in the book of Smythies. Based on what Hewett wrote, one would expect to see an extra-large tiger every now and then in Nepal, especially when the one who shot them would be an enthousiastic hunter hunting nearly every year.   

g - Tiger hunting was popular in the days of Smythies. It was considered 'sport'. For tiger hunters, measurements were important. In order to be able to compare measurements, they decided for a method and rules. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you had to follow the rules. The more important the hunter, the more important the rules. In those days, cheating was out of the question. If you couldn't resist the temptation and your peers found out about it, it was game over. Loss of face would have been one of the most effective results. For this reason, those participating stuck to the rules. Same for Maharajah's and the shikari's they employed.

These shikari's, by the way, were mentioned by many writers with a lot of experience. Most were so experienced, they were able to get to an accurate estimate when they saw prints. The shikari's usually were the ones who did the measurements, meaning many were very experienced. There is, I think, no reason to doubt their ability. If we did, it would be a result of arrogance or worse.  

I know of exceptions to the general rule, but they were exceptions and I don't remember an incident in which the Maharajah of Nepal was involved.  

h - Although some of the tigers shot in Nepal were very long, they were not extra-exceptional. There are, in fact, quite many records of tigers approaching or even exceeding 11 feet in total length (measured 'over curves'). I assume you are familiar with the article of Lt.-Col. G.F. Waugh in 'Field and Stream' ('Old One Eye' was 11 feet); C.E. Gouldsbury (a tiger of 10.7); Col. A.N.W. Powell (tigers of 10.4, 10.7 and 10.8); J. Inglis (tigers of 10.11, 11.0, 11.1 and 11.5), and R.I. Pocock (1929), who wrote one Annam tiger with a skull of 15,5 x 11,5 was 10.7, probably measured 'between pegs'. There are many more.

We could, as many do, just dismiss the lot and stick to measurements taken 'between pegs' by modern biologists, but that would be a tremendous loss of information. It also would be arrogant. Furthermore, I have some questions as to what biologists mean when they say they measured a tiger in the proper way. But that is something to be discussed later. Reply