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

[peter]

(04-14-2015, 12:24 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Just a few points to remember and/or to take in count:
 
1. The un-adjusted weight for Nepalese male tigers is of 235 kg, the figure of 221 kg is already adjusted by 14 kg, which was the average food intake of those tigers.
 
2. I have not read entirely the book of Hewett, but as far I know he doesn’t used baits for its tigers. In the story of the hunt of the 570 lb (259 kg) tiger, he just describe that they prepare a macan and the specimen arrived and was shoot, no baits are mentioned. It is correct to say that Hewett’s records don’t need to be adjusted? I think it is, but you (Peter) surely know more on his book.
 
3. There are several measurements of tigers in west-south India and they all match those of tigers in India and Nepal. The difference is in weight, I know of 7 males actually weighed from 1900 to 1995 and none of them surpassed 227 kg. It seems that these tigers are somewhat lighter than those of the Terai arc.
 
4. The size of the Bachelor of Powalgarh is, in fact, practically unreliable. Why??? Well, because total length in great cats is very deceptive to estimate the real size. Yes, that huge tiger measured about 310 cm between pegs, BUT how many is “body” and how many is “tail”??? We must remember the record of 302.3 cm of Brander, this tigers was “short” by any standard, but in fact, its head-body was of 221 cm, which is the record for any big cat ever captured-hunted in the wild!!! I think that the Bachelor was similar in size than the huge male tiger of Brander, but its tail was probably short, after all, the picture of the tiger is immense and surpass that of the Sauraha male by much.
 
5. Apart from the 590 lb (c.268 kg) tiger reported by Colonel Singh in his book “One man and a thousand tigers” from 1959, there is another 600 lb (272 kg) tiger hunted in the same region (Gwalior). Check this out:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

The record is from 1914, but seems to be a reliable, and although the animal was measured "over the curves", we can estimate if at c.332 cm, which is the maximum reliably recorded for a tiger, between pegs.
 
This is the picture of the 590 lb (c.269 kg) and 349 cm (329 cm between pegs) tiger record from Singh:
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

There is no doubt that most Bengal tigers weight between 200 to 230 kg, but large males weight between 250 to 270 kg and exceptionally large specimens reached 290 -300 kg, like for example, the record of 705 lb (320 kg) male tiger from Smythies.
 




 

Ad 1 - You're right regarding the Royal Chitwan tigers. They were 235 kg. unadjusted and 221 kg. adjusted.

Ad 2 - Most, if not all, tigers Hewett and his guests shot were not baited. The hunters, informed on the whereabouts of tigers by trackers, used elephants to surround and shoot them. At times, tiger families were driven out of cover and shot. Some of the cubs survived, only to be shot next year. This is how Hewett knew some of the males weighed were young adults or adolescents.

Ad 3 - Some male tigers shot in southern India exceeded 500 pounds. The Luckvalley tiger certainly did. Old One Eye, full of beef, was 11 feet 'over curves' and estimated at 700 pounds. Meinertzhagen shot two males not selected for size in southern India. They were 454 and 498 pounds. R.G. Burton ('A book of Man-Eaters') shot one of 9.8 in the Deccan who exceeded a 500-pound scale. He was estimated at 550. Hicks shot a very large tiger of 9.7 'between pegs' in Mysore. Judging from his measurements (chest 64 inches, neck 38 and skull 40), he was much more robust than the Sauraha tiger. There is a report of a tiger shot in southern India with a chest of 73 inches. I also noticed quite many tigers shot in southern India exceeded 14,5 inches in greatest total skull length. 

Ad 4 - Hewett's book has a lot of information. The 18 males he weighed averaged 435,60 pounds and 291,96 cm. 'over curves'. The 22 he didn't weigh averaged 300,87 cm. Of the 18 he weighed, 8 large tigers averaged 299,71 cm. 'over curves' and 491,75 pounds. The others averaged 285,75 cm. and 390,80 pounds, a difference of nearly 101 pounds. The conclusion is total length, and not head and body length, seems to be the best factor to estimate weight. The reason, I think, is age. Male tigers seem to grow nearly all their life and put on weight for a long time. A century ago, some males estimated at 15-20 years were in excellent health and very big when they were shot. Today, as a result of severe competition, this is unheard of. The 40 males shot by Hewett and his guests, by the way, averaged 296,86 cm. 'over curves'. Use the information you have to estimate the average weight of all 40. Not that difficult, but it will take you some time. You can use the table I posted some time ago. 

Ad 5 - I read Kesri Singh's book and think the information can be used. If you do the work on Hewett's tigers, you can get to a good estimate on the two tigers Singh mentioned in his book (and all other tigers shot and measured, but not weighed, in northern India). The reason is there isn't much to choose between Nepal and northern India for type. The weights mentioned (590 and 600 pounds) were, if anything, a bit below expectation. 

A century and a half ago, most hunters thought tigers in central and, especially, southern India, although not reaching the same length as those in the north, were generally more robust and heavier. Based on what I have, I would agree. I will try to find the report on the tiger with 73-inch chest shot in southern India. He was much bigger than the 10-footers shot in the north and he wasn't the only one. Mysore and Kanara produced quite many robust tigers. Those in the southwest (Niligiris and Nagarahole), although impressive, are a bit longer, but not as big. The biggest tigers shot in southern India, judging from the comments and the details I read, probably exceeded 500 pounds quite often. Reply