WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
Brander, Hewett and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar: a review to the records
Brander, Hewett and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar: a review to the records
|
Brander, Hewett and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar: a review to the records
|
I made this new topic because I made a review to all the weights and sizes from these three hunters and naturalist of the first part of the 19 century. Besides, it is fair to say that the records of these three men present the largest samples and series of measurements of all times, given the only reliable clips about the real spectrum of sizes that the tigers can present.
The point is also to compare the figures that I obtained with those of peter, because when I made my review, none of the averages or ranges match with those of him. Let’s begin the investigation in order the set the final figures that will be used in the future. Dunbar Brander (1923) Wild Animals in Central India: There is not much to say about him. He presents his records in a clean form, no interpretation, just the average, ranges and sample sizes. Here are the images:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author It is interesting to see that the figures that he proposes are for “gorged” tigers, however he also say that although he used only those that he classified as adults, he confess that this is a very hard work and that at the end, that classification is a plain “guess”. In this case, many juveniles’ specimens were included in his sample, but this will help to balance the averages that could be inflated by the gorged specimens. The figure of 420 lb. (190.5 kg - males) and 290 lb. (131.5 kg – females) would represent, in this case, the average of more or less empty belly tigers, thanks to the inclusions of young specimens. Among all the length records, the longest tiger of Brander (10 ft 3 in – 313 cm) represent the forth longest male tiger measured between pegs, apart from the record tigers of Gerard Wood (1978), which measured 323, 322 and 320 cm between pegs. However, his largest tiger was not the longest just because its tail was cut off. This huge male measured 7 ft 3 inn (221 cm) in head-body between pegs, been the largest wild cat ever measured, and only surpassed by the great prehistoric felids. If this giant could have a tail of 113 cm (the tail recorded for the Sauraha male), it would measure 333 cm between pegs. This male is practically of the same size (if not slightly larger) than the largest male Amur tiger hunted by Jankovski (quoted by Mazák). In the case of Brander, everything in already written, explained and we can use it safely. :sleepy: John P. Hewett (1938) Jungle Trails in Northern India: Reminiscences of Hunting in India: These are the best records from the northwest area of India. This was the region where Jim Corbett lived and where the famous Bachelor of Powalgarh made its domains. Hewett was a great hunter and naturalist, but he don’t present all his records in a single form, he gives the list of his largest ones but all the other are scattered through the book. In this case, I used the images posted by peter and Bold champ, in order the get the full list of specimens presented by Hewett in his book. Here are all the original images:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Note: the post allows only 10 images for post. The next images will be in my next post. Based in all these weights, I constructed the following tables (preliminary) for male and female tigers:  *This image is copyright of its original author The average weight for males was of 202.1 kg (n=19; range 165.6 – 258.5) while that of females was of 139.4 kg (n=7; range 117.9 – 157.4). This surprises me because the figures of peter are completely different. Here is the comparison: Me (2014): Males - 202.1 kg (n=19; range 165.6 – 258.5). Females - 139.4 kg (n=7; range 117.9 – 157.4). From peter: Males - 197.6 kg (n=18; range 161.0 – 258.5). Females – 132.9 kg (n=8; range 113.4 – 157.4). My first thought was that I was wrong and I copy again all the records, this time manually and latter I compare them with those of my excel sheet. The result was clear: I had not repeated any record and I have not found in any part the weights of the smallest specimens (355 lb for the male; 250 lb for the female). About the female, the sample of peter is larger, so it is possible that Bold simple don’t found the record and didn’t take a picture of it. However, for the male tigers, my sample is larger and I highly doubt that Bold would lose the opportunity to show such a small specimen. My guess is that in the case of the male, maybe peter misquotes the figure of 365 lb, while in the case of the female I think that Bold slipped that figure in his pictures. Take in count that this is just speculation, and peter is the only one that could clarify those records. It is interesting to see that if we take only the specimens over 170 kg (the male of 368 lb was a cub with his sister; the male of 365 lb had porcupine quills in its back), the average will be of 209 kg (n=16), slightly higher than the records of Cooch Behar (excluding the gorged or full of beef specimens). If we include the male of 355 lb, the average would be of 200 kg (n=20). It seems that the tigers from the northwest India had average figures of no less than 200 kg for males and 130 kg for females. However, I need the help of peter in order the set the official figure in this area. About the total length (which is the only measurement presented by Hewett), I am not interested as it was taken over curves. So, in that case, I would only copy-paste the figures of peter. Here are the other images from Bold:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author He posted 14 images in total.
The Maharaja of Cooch Behar (1908) Thirty-seven years of Big Game Shooting in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam – a rough diary:
The Maharaja of Cooch Behar was a great hunter and his lists of records is by far the best among the tigers. I was the first one in putting together all his figures in a table, using not only the large ones in his final tables, but also those on the text. The original results have change slightly trough this time, but in my last review, I put every single one of the figures in order to study the changes and variations using correlation figures. The tables for males and females and the final table are presented here:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author None of the tables includes the “gorged” or the “full of beef” specimens. The blue figures are those of the final tables. The black figures are those at the text. There is the popular though that the records of Cooch Behar are biased because only its large males were used (Schaller, 1967), however this is true IF you only use those figures in the final tables. I have used all the figures, including those in the book. This provides the best tables about tiger morphology, compared only by those published by the modern Siberian Tiger Project! Incredible, again, my data and that of peter don’t match. However in this occasion I do have the full book and I can assure to all that I have taken great care with all the figures and as the list shows, I have presented both the “over curves” average (in the large tables) and the “between pegs” averages (in the summary table). The figures of the Maharaja are the only ones that we can correct the measurements reliably, as the average difference between these measurements (over curves and between pegs) was of 14 cm for males and 12 cm for females. The authors: Like an “extra” to this post, here are the pictures of two of these great authors: Sir John Prescott Hewett:  *This image is copyright of its original author Maharaja Nripendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur, from Cooch Behar:  *This image is copyright of its original author Archibald Alexander Dunbar Brander:  *This image is copyright of its original author Sadly I could not found a larger picture of Dunbar Brander, because the page ask me to log in in order to access the image. Here is the LINK Greetings to all. :) 
How does Branders "600lb" tiger measure up to other large specimens?
59'' body girth 39'' Head 21'' Forearm girth 43'' shoulder height 7'3'' Body Length 2'8'' Tail Length He is quoted in being in awe of its massive neck muscles and says that the same bullet that was used for killing shots didn't even make it to the bone on this tiger. Great work BTW, Thanks a lot. We can definitely assume with a larger body girth, forearm girth, and a taller shoulder height, as well as a longer body than any other of the "brown and cooch behar" tigers, that 600lbs is definitely not out of the question for that tiger. Will you be doing hunted lions next? 
Hello everyone, glad to be here!
KingT here  Good work Guate, nicely done... About the weight of 355 pounds from Hewett, the weight of the animal is actually mentioned on page 148. It measured 9 ft 4 inches. However, peter said that he concluded that the tiger of 355 was not adult yet, so I recommend excluding it. Greetings :) http://books.google.ca/books?ei=tu46U7_n...lume&q=355 (04-01-2014, 09:53 PM)Kingtheropod Wrote: Hello everyone, glad to be here! Hi KingT, good to see you here.  Thanks for the link, I have found the two smaller specimens, here is the image:  *This image is copyright of its original author The average weight for all males is now of of 200.0 kg (n=20; range 161 – 258.5) while that of females was of 136.1 kg (n=8; range 113.4 – 157.4). Take in count that here I include the four specimens that seems to be sub-adult of at least between 3-4 years old or simply in bad shape (like the male with porcupine quills). If we take only those over 4 years (full grow), the average weight for males is now of 208.8 kg (n=16; range 170.1 – 258.5). This seems the most reliable and is larger than those from Cooch Behar (excluding the gorged specimens). (04-01-2014, 09:34 PM)Pckts Wrote: How does Branders "600lb" tiger measure up to other large specimens? Hello Pckts, good to see you here too. :) In fact, the giant tiger of Brander is the largest tiger I have ever saw in a record, measured between pegs. However, there are other tigers that probably reached its size and weight. There is a tiger reported by Sterndale (1884), shot by Col Walter Campbell, that it was measured between pegs and had a head-body length of c.201 cm and a chest girth of 160 cm! This was surely a very heavy tiger, no less than 600 lb too. The largest tiger overall is the Ramsay tiger. This huge brute surpass all the measurements of the Brander's giant. Although the total length was taken "over curves" (366 cm), taking in count that its tail was of 114 cm, and subtracting 25 cm of the length, we get a head-body of c.227 cm between pegs. This animal would be a true giant by any means. Here is the image of the Ramsay tiger and a little list that I personally made some time ago, with several tigers between pegs (includes the record of Campbell).  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Ramsey's tiger was indeed massive. Huge head, forearms, chest and neck. Definitely another 600lber.
What happened in "the encounter" where ramseys tiger is mentioned. It speaks of a group of lions vs a tiger.
Records of the “great ones”:
Here is a summary of the records of the three great hunters-naturalists that have given us the best samples about tiger size and weight: Weight: * A. A. Dunbar Brander – 1923: Males: 190.5 kg (n=42; range 160.1 – 233.6) Females: 131.5 kg (n=39; range 124.0 – 155.6) * John P. Hewett – 1938: Males: 200.0 kg (n=20; range 161.0 – 258.5) Females: 136.1 kg (n=8; range 113.4 – 157.4) * Maharaja of Cooch Behar – 1908: Males: 205.0 kg (n=44; range 168.3 – 236.0) Females: 141.0 kg (n=11; range 118.4 – 163.3) Total length: * A. A. Dunbar Brander – 1923 (between pegs): Males: 282 cm (n=42; range 267 – 313) Females: 254 cm (n=39; range 239 – 277) * John P. Hewett – 1938 (over curves): Males: 298 cm (n=45; range 272 – 319) Females: 269 cm (n=27; range 241 – 290) * Maharaja of Cooch Behar – 1908 (between pegs [corrected]): Males: 280 cm (n=89; range 250 – 301) Females: 256 cm (n=35; range 222 – 276) (04-01-2014, 11:23 PM)Pckts Wrote: Ramsey's tiger was indeed massive. Huge head, forearms, chest and neck. Definitely another 600lber. No idea, this is the only source, as far I know, where this exhibition is mentioned. About the Ramsay tiger, I don't think that this was a 600 lb tiger, its is massive and much larger than the 600 lb tiger of Brander. I think that the Ramsay tiger weight no less than 660 lb (300 kg). Take in count that the heaviest tiger in Nepal weighed 320 kg (Smythies, 1942), so this huge tigers is another possible candidate for that figure.
New table of Hewett:
Like I say before, these are only “preliminary” tables and are just for database and comparison purposes HERE. Until peter and I could verify the full figures, this will be the data that I will use.  *This image is copyright of its original author Take in count that I put here the average of the full grow males and that of the >3 years old males. Besides, I add the picture of Hewett, it make it more “official”. It is good to see that the heaviest male from Hewett (570 lb) is correctly converted to 258.5 kg (Excel® approximation) and not the 258.2 kg erroneous figure of Mazák (1981). It is also interesting that this male was only “less than 2 kg” lighter than the Sauraha male from Nepal, and according with the text of the book, this tiger was not baited, but killed at the moment when he found it. 
Many thanks for the tables and the excellent information, Guate. The averages of your tables are similar to those I found. For now, we can conclude Indian tigers in the recent past (about a century ago) showed regional differences in size with tigers in the south-east and the Deccan somewhat smaller than those in northern India and, in particular, the north-east (Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam).
Hewett's tigers were not as heavy as those in Cooch Behar and Assam, but we have to remember his sample was smaller. Furthermore, the tables we made apparently had a number of immature animals and/or young adults. Finally, Hewett wrote he wasn't able to weigh many animals. Most of these (12 out of 22) were described as 'heavy' animals. Based on what I saw in the tables I made (long tigers significantly heavier than short tigers, which could be a result of age), I concluded tigers in northern India and Nepal (referring to Hewett), about a century ago, most probably were a bit longer (roundabout 2 inches in total length, measured 'over curves') and at least as heavy as those in the north-east (referring to the Maharajah of Cooch Behar), if not heavier. The information I found in other books published well before WW II confirmed the conclusion I got to. It would be interesting to compare the averages of tigers a century ago with today's average, but this is difficult as a result of a lack of reliable data. The information available suggests today's tigers seem to be a bit longer and 5-10% heavier. The tables I made some years ago were based on the books you mentioned and used. In the past two years, I read many other books. The database I now have is about twice as large (well over 400 adult male wild Indian tigers as well as about 200 adult wild females). I didn't get to a new table yet, but I think the conclusions regarding regional differences in size (referring to India) will be confirmed. Same for skulls. Pocock (1929) concluded skulls of tigers in northern India were a bit larger than those of tigers in central and southern India. His conclusion was confirmed by what I found in different books and articles. His sample was limited, but mine (skulls of wild adult males only) is quite large (>100). Most unfortunately, I'm not able to post photographs, tables or pages yet. The main problem is I do not know how to get into the albums I stored in Photobucket and post the images I want to use when writing a post. The system is different than the one I used before. I need a bit of time.
Thanks for the reply guys. It is good to know that you have a larger skull sample. However, based in the old records, it is sad that most of them only have the greatest length and the zigomatic wide. These are the best measurements, but it will be good if at least there were also condylobasal and basal length and rostral breath.
About the images: In Photobucket, when you select an image, you have an option in the section "links to share this photo" that say "Direct", copy that address. Latter, in the square of reply here, select the icon "insert image" and copy the address from photobucket. Whe your reply is ready, the image will be on it. Try it. 
@GuateGojira
I have just made tutorial on how to insert image from any source http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-how-to-i...this-forum Please help other poster on how to do this. I will also make a tutorial on how to upload image from your System(Computer, laptop, etc)
1 - HEWETT
This is the table I posted in the extinction thread on tigers in AVA:  *This image is copyright of its original author As you can see (a1 and a2), the 8 tigers averaging 491,75 pounds (a2) were significantly longer (14 cm.) than the 10 males averaging 390,80 pounds. The difference could be a result of age, but that's only a guess. Now go to the tigers not weighed (B). You can see they were longer than the 8 heavy tigers (300,87 cm. vs 299,71 cm.). Let's say they were similar in length. We can't say anything on their average weight, as they were not weighed. Hewett, however, wrote 12 of these 22 were either 'heavy' or 'very heavy'. We also know long tigers in this sample were about 100 pounds heavier than shorter tigers. If we combine both, we can assume the tigers not weighed probably were close in weight to those of similar length that were weighed. This means the average for male tigers in North-India probably is quite a bit higher than the average based on the 18 animals that were weighed. As the 5 male Nepal tigers that were not weighed averaged no less than 311 cm. 'over curves', we have to assume they were even heavier. I'm sure we can get to a new average using the information in the table, as the information on weight is rebliable. My guess is we will get somewhere between 470-520 pounds. Let's say 495 pounds empty for now. This assumption is, indirectly, confirmed by the average of 7 adult males in Chitwan Sunquist found nearly a century later (221 kg. adjusted or 488 pounds). 2 - TIGERS IN NORTHERN-INDIA AND NEPAL COMPARED If we add the information from Russia regarding wild Amur tigers today, the conclusion is Nepal tigers, most probably, are the largest tigers today in both length and weight. My guess is they also were about a century ago, although the information I have suggests Russia and, in particular, Manchuria probably had more individuals that compared to the largest tigers in Nepal today (570-625 pounds or a bit over). Tigers in north-east India today seem to be at least at heavy as those in northern India and Nepal, but there's no reliable information we can use. The biggest surprise, perhaps, is the size of today's tigers in South-India (referring to the tigers actually measured nd weighed by Ullas Karant). Could reflect excellent conditions. 3 - THE REAL AVERAGE OF WILD ADULT MALE TIGERS TODAY On the other hand. Any wild population will have young adults, prime animals, old animals and tigers that struggle for some reason (just look at Russia). This means we can't use prime animals only to get to an average, as this would have an inflatory effect. Seen from this perspective, Hewett's average could be more reliable than we assume. Same for the average of Cooch Behar and Assam, also because of the size of the sample. If we apply this idea, we have to assume that wild adult male tigers in most regions in North-India probably averaged somewhere between 402-460 pounds a century ago (the average for adult wild males in 4 regions about a century ago was 402, 420, 435 and 460 pounds). Let's assume wild male tigers living in reserves today are about 5-10% heavier than a century ago. This would result in an average ranging between 422 (402 + 5%) and 506 (460 + 10%) pounds or between 442 (402 + 10%) and 483 (460 + 5%) pounds. If we add 422, 442, 486 and 506 (1856) and go for the median, we get to 463 pounds or thereabout for an average wild adult male in the regions mentioned above. This works out at about 210 kg. 4 - CAPTIVE MALE TIGERS IN INDIAN ZOOS If the average weight of wild male tigers is opposed to the average weight of male tigers in Indian zoos (just over 183 kg. or 405 pounds), we could say wild adult male tigers are about 27 kg. or 60 pounds (about 13-15%)heavier:  *This image is copyright of its original author Although we can't just compare both (there's no information on the length and age of the animals used), we have to assume the difference between captive and wild male tigers is roughly 10-15%. The main reason is wild big cats can feast on large prey animals every now and then, whereas their captive relatives would not get that opportunity. Less food is less proteine is less weight. There's no need to grow to a large size in captivity, as it doesn't pay.
I am agree in your conclusions, if those large males would be weighed, the average where probably no less than 210 kg and up to 220 kg, like the Nepalese tigers, adjusted for stomach content.
By the way, I get to the conclusion that the four smaller males (No. 17-20) must be excluded from the sample, after all, they seems to be not fully grow, two of them were clearly young, one of them was still with his sister (probably no more than 2-2.5 years old) and other male had quills of porcupine, imagine how healthy could be a male in that conditions??? The average that we should use, for tigers in Northwest India (Hewett, 1938) should be that of 208.8 kg (n=16; range: 170.1 - 258.5 kg). Probably, these are the only full grow males in healthy conditions.
Great stuff Peter and Guate. Seems like Length is the best determination for Tiger size and age. Exceptions obviously exist, but length does seem like the most reliable correalation ATM. This also shows that most chest girths won't hit their maximums till the tiger is done growing.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |