There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
02-10-2015, 03:37 AM( This post was last modified: 02-10-2015, 03:38 AM by Pckts )
(02-10-2015, 02:56 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: I am afraid that you have perhaps bought a fake tooth.
Since a real tiger tooth has those trench-like marks on the crown part, but it doesn't appear on your tooth.
Maybe it is due over polishing?
BTW, are you sure it is a real tooth or it is simply made by resin just like the Bone Clone products?
Also, did you feel the tooth is organic? When it can be cracking or smelly, then it is indeed a real tooth.
I have had 0 expierence with the touch of a tooth before this one. We held a flame to it to make sure it wouldn't melt like a fake tooth would, I am sure its polished to get it smooth. It feels dense and heavy but I would have no clue if its real or not. She told me it was, but it is thailand and I bought it from a street vender. I figured here would be the place to show it and get some estimates. I will say that this tooth definitely feels like it could withstand the pressure of being slammed into muscle or bone fairly easily if that gives you an idea.
When comparing mine to the bone clones, mine has a definite residue from the gum line that I dont see in the bone clones as well as a crack that may be from wear and tare. I will have to take a picture of it from above as well since it has some interesting marks.
02-12-2015, 09:01 PM( This post was last modified: 09-23-2020, 07:53 PM by peter )
BOOKS
I recently ordered two dozen books Sunda tigers and Indian tigers. One of the books is the famous book of Smythies ('Big Game Hunting in Nepal'). It's very expensive, but has, as the seller said, " ... lots of dead tigers ... ", meaning a lot of records and weights. In this respect, the book compares to that of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and Sir John Hewett ('Jungle Trails in Northern India').
I also bought a book written by Lt.-Col. H.S. Wood ('Shikar Memories', London, 1934). Wood did his hunting in Burma and Assam, although all tigers were shot in Assam (Tezpur). Like nearly everyone in those days in northern India and Nepal, Wood measured the tigers he shot (or poisoned) 'over curves'. His longest compared to those shot by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Hewett, Corbett and Smythies (between 10.4 and just over 10.5). The longest tigers also were the heaviest. Heavy tigers weren't quantified, but expressed in the number of men needed to carry them.
To give you an idea about weight. Hewett wrote some of the heaviest he shot had to be carried by 12 able men. Wood wrote he needed 11 to carry two tigers taping 10 feet four and a half inches (more than once). I wouldn't know about then and now, but over here, on a concrete and horizontal floor, we needed 4 to carry an average male Amur tiger and five for a big one (over 440 pounds). One has to assume the men in Wild India in those days were fitter than we are, but they didn't have a stretcher and the tiger had to be moved from a nullah as well.
If you think the tigers mentioned were heavy compared to a wild boar, you are wrong. In Assam, Wood shot a wild boar with 9-inch tusks that had to be carried by 17 men (...). And he wasn't the largest he saw. This was in the days just before and after the turn of the previous century. I remember a letter in the JBNHS on a 350-pound wild boar. A wild boar of that weight was considered exceptional in the first half of the 20th century. But it wasn't. In Assam, half a century earlier, they would have considered him a decent amateur.
Wood, by the way, again confirmed that a solitary big male wild boar often was a match for even a big male tiger. Didn't keep 'm from trying, though, as porc was their favorite. Wood saw many trampled arenas and in most cases the tiger had suffered a local defeat. Remember some male tigers, like today, were well over 500 pounds. Wood described them as immense animals. In this respect, he's consistent with others who hunted in this part of India.
METHODS
I've read many books about Indian tigers. The conclusion I reached is tigers in Nepal, north-west India, Assam and Cooch Behar were nearly always measured 'over curves'. In Central India, on the other hand, tigers were always measured 'between pegs'. Those in southern India were measured in both ways. In southern India, it depended on the hunter (and not on the local habits).
The difference between the two methods always posed problems, but I think they are overdoing it. Those who had experience with both methods agreed it usually was about 6 inches in an adult male tiger. If the tiger was a large male and the hunter a slopper, the difference could be as much as 8-12 inches. In north-west India, however, hunters who had experience with both methods agreed the difference was 2-5 inches (two for females and five for large males). In Cooch Behar, the difference in ten adult males measured in both ways was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm.). All in all, it was a bit of a mixed bag.
To conclude. It is important to remember that tigers were measured in a different way in different parts of India before Independance. In northern India, measuring a tiger was considered a sacred ritual. They took their time, which, of course, resulted in a limited difference between both methods. Same in Central India. In other regions, things appeared to be a bit more casual.
LENGTH
Those loaded with experience agreed tigers in northern India were larger (longer and heavier) than elsewhere. In spite of that, most of those who wrote books were unable to produce a tiger over 10.6 measured 'over curves' (roundabout 10 feet straight) in that part of India, whereas there are quite many reliable reports on ten feet tigers (measured 'between pegs') in Central India. What to make of that?
One is the difference related to averages. Two is it would have been easier to find an exceptional animal when there were ten tigers to every one today. The information I have leaves no room for interpretations or mistakes: tigers of 9.8 straight and over were found everywhere in India a century ago.
So how about these averages for different parts of India then?
I have well over 500 measurements of adult male tigers I consider reliable. About half of these relate to tigers measured 'between pegs'. There is, in my opinion, no doubt regarding averages: tigers in Nepal and northern India were longer than those in other parts of India. Although I'm not done yet, my guess is adult males in southern India average about 9 feet 'between pegs' (a bit longer in the south-west and a bit shorter in the south-east), about 9.2 'between pegs' in Central India (those in the eastern part a bit longer and those in the western part a bit shorter) and about 9.4 'between pegs' in northern India (those in the north-west are a bit longer than those in the north-east). There's no doubt that Nepal tigers exceed 9.4 'between pegs', but I didn't get to an average yet. Compared to Amur tigers today (between 9.7-9.8 'between pegs' for males of 36 months and over and definitely over 9.8 'between pegs' for adult males of 48 months and over), Nepal tigers are a bit shorter, but not by much (1-3 inches).
This year, I will construct tables on the size of tigers everywhere. With 'size', I mean length, weight, skull and body dimensions. Some of the tables will be posted. When I have the book of Smythies, I will post a few scans.
02-13-2015, 12:29 AM( This post was last modified: 02-13-2015, 12:30 AM by Pckts )
(02-12-2015, 09:01 PM)'peter' Wrote: BOOKS
I recently ordered two dozen books. Half of it is on Sunda tigers and the other half on Indian tigers. One of the books is the famous book of Smythies ('Big Game Hunting in Nepal'). It's very expensive, but has, as the seller said, " ... lots of dead tigers ... ", meaning a lot of records and weights. In this respect, the book compares to that of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and Sir John Hewett ('Jungle Trails in Northern India').
I also bought a book written by Lt.-Col. H.S. Wood ('Shikar Memories', London, 1934). Wood did his hunting in Burma and Assam, although all tigers were shot in Assam (Tezpur). Like nearly everyone in those days in northern India and Nepal, Wood measured the tigers he shot (or poisoned) 'over curves'. His longest compared to those shot by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Hewett, Corbett and Smythies (between 10.4 and just over 10.5). The longest tigers also were the heaviest. Heavy tigers weren't quantified, but expressed in the number of men needed to carry them.
To give you an idea about weight. Hewett wrote some of the heaviest he shot had to be carried by 12 able men. Wood wrote he needed 11 to carry two tigers taping 10 feet four and a half inches (more than once). I wouldn't know about then and now, but over here, on a concrete and horizontal floor, we needed 4 to carry an average male Amur tiger and five for a big one (over 440 pounds). One has to assume the men in Wild India in those days were fitter than we are, but they didn't have a stretcher and the tiger had to be moved from a nullah as well.
If you think the tigers mentioned were heavy compared to a wild boar, you are wrong. In Assam, Wood shot a wild boar with 9-inch tusks that had to be carried by 17 men (...). And he wasn't the largest he saw. This was in the days just before and after the turn of the previous century. I remember a letter in the JBNHS on a 350-pound wild boar. A wild boar of that weight was considered exceptional in the first half of the 20th century. But it wasn't. In Assam, half a century earlier, they would have considered him a decent amateur.
Wood, by the way, again confirmed that a solitary big male wild boar often was a match for even a big male tiger. Didn't keep 'm from trying, though, as porc was their favorite. Wood saw many trampled arenas and in most cases the tiger had suffered a local defeat. Remember some male tigers, like today, were well over 500 pounds. Wood described them as immense animals. In this respect, he's consistent with others who hunted in this part of India.
METHODS
I've read many books about Indian tigers. The conclusion I reached is tigers in Nepal, north-west India, Assam and Cooch Behar were nearly always measured 'over curves'. In Central India, on the other hand, tigers were always measured 'between pegs'. Those in southern India were measured in both ways. In southern India, it depended on the hunter (and not on the local habits).
The difference between the two methods always posed problems, but I think they are overdoing it. Those who had experience with both methods agreed it usually was about 6 inches in an adult male tiger. If the tiger was a large male and the hunter a slopper, the difference could be as much as 8-12 inches. In north-west India, however, hunters who had experience with both methods agreed the difference was 2-5 inches (two for females and five for large males). In Cooch Behar, the difference in ten adult males measured in both ways was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm.). All in all, it was a bit of a mixed bag.
To conclude. It is important to remember that tigers were measured in a different way in different parts of India before Independance. In northern India, measuring a tiger was considered a sacred ritual. They took their time, which, of course, resulted in a limited difference between both methods. Same in Central India. In other regions, things appeared to be a bit more casual.
LENGTH
Those loaded with experience agreed tigers in northern India were larger (longer and heavier) in northern India. In spite of that, most of those who wrote books were unable to produce a tiger over 10.6 measured 'over curves' (roundabout 10 feet straight) in that part of India, whereas there are quite many reliable reports on ten feet tigers (measured 'between pegs') in Central India. What to make of that?
One is the difference related to averages. Two is it would have been easier to find an exceptional animal when there were ten tigers to every one today. The information I have leaves no room for interpretations or mistakes: tigers of 9.8 straight and over were found everywhere in India a century ago.
So how about these averages for different parts of India then?
I have well over 500 measurements of adult male tigers I consider reliable. About half of these relate to tigers measured 'between pegs'. There is, in my opinion, no doubt regarding averages: tigers in Nepal and northern India were longer than those in other parts of India. Although I'm not done yet, my guess is adult males in southern India average about 9 feet 'between pegs' (a bit longer in the south-west and a bit shorter in the south-east), about 9.2 'between pegs' in Central India (those in the eastern part a bit longer and those in the western part a bit shorter) and about 9.4 'between pegs' in northern India (those in the north-west are a bit longer than those in the north-east). There's no doubt that Nepal tigers exceed 9.4 'between pegs', but I didn't get to an average yet. Compared to Amur tigers today (between 9.7-9.8 'between pegs' for males of 36 months and over and definitely over 9.8 'between pegs' for adult males of 48 months and over), Nepal tigers are a bit shorter, but not by much (1-3 inches).
This year, I will construct tables on the size of tigers everywhere. With 'size', I mean length, weight, skull and body dimensions. Some of the tables will be posted. When I have the book of Smythies, I will post a few scans.
Since body length is the best correlation to body weight in Tigers, it pretty much ties perfectly in with the idea that N. Indian Tigers are probably the largest of all cats in the human era.
About Boar, I am not surprised one bit. I have seen some absolutely massive boar and when you watch predation on them, it takes extreme effort for a tiger just to penetrate the animal. Unless a tiger gets a throat hold, its in for a very long battle. Boars are so close to the ground that their throats are not easily accessible.
02-13-2015, 02:16 AM( This post was last modified: 02-13-2015, 02:31 AM by Amnon242 )
Since body length is the best correlation to body weight in Tigers, it pretty much ties perfectly in with the idea that N. Indian Tigers are probably the largest of all cats in the human era.
About Boar, I am not surprised one bit. I have seen some absolutely massive boar and when you watch predation on them, it takes extreme effort for a tiger just to penetrate the animal. Unless a tiger gets a throat hold, its in for a very long battle. Boars are so close to the ground that their throats are not easily accessible.
02-13-2015, 02:32 AM( This post was last modified: 02-13-2015, 02:32 AM by Pckts )
(02-13-2015, 02:16 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 12:29 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(02-12-2015, 09:01 PM)'peter' Wrote: BOOKS
I recently ordered two dozen books. Half of it is on Sunda tigers and the other half on Indian tigers. One of the books is the famous book of Smythies ('Big Game Hunting in Nepal'). It's very expensive, but has, as the seller said, " ... lots of dead tigers ... ", meaning a lot of records and weights. In this respect, the book compares to that of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and Sir John Hewett ('Jungle Trails in Northern India').
I also bought a book written by Lt.-Col. H.S. Wood ('Shikar Memories', London, 1934). Wood did his hunting in Burma and Assam, although all tigers were shot in Assam (Tezpur). Like nearly everyone in those days in northern India and Nepal, Wood measured the tigers he shot (or poisoned) 'over curves'. His longest compared to those shot by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Hewett, Corbett and Smythies (between 10.4 and just over 10.5). The longest tigers also were the heaviest. Heavy tigers weren't quantified, but expressed in the number of men needed to carry them.
To give you an idea about weight. Hewett wrote some of the heaviest he shot had to be carried by 12 able men. Wood wrote he needed 11 to carry two tigers taping 10 feet four and a half inches (more than once). I wouldn't know about then and now, but over here, on a concrete and horizontal floor, we needed 4 to carry an average male Amur tiger and five for a big one (over 440 pounds). One has to assume the men in Wild India in those days were fitter than we are, but they didn't have a stretcher and the tiger had to be moved from a nullah as well.
If you think the tigers mentioned were heavy compared to a wild boar, you are wrong. In Assam, Wood shot a wild boar with 9-inch tusks that had to be carried by 17 men (...). And he wasn't the largest he saw. This was in the days just before and after the turn of the previous century. I remember a letter in the JBNHS on a 350-pound wild boar. A wild boar of that weight was considered exceptional in the first half of the 20th century. But it wasn't. In Assam, half a century earlier, they would have considered him a decent amateur.
Wood, by the way, again confirmed that a solitary big male wild boar often was a match for even a big male tiger. Didn't keep 'm from trying, though, as porc was their favorite. Wood saw many trampled arenas and in most cases the tiger had suffered a local defeat. Remember some male tigers, like today, were well over 500 pounds. Wood described them as immense animals. In this respect, he's consistent with others who hunted in this part of India.
METHODS
I've read many books about Indian tigers. The conclusion I reached is tigers in Nepal, north-west India, Assam and Cooch Behar were nearly always measured 'over curves'. In Central India, on the other hand, tigers were always measured 'between pegs'. Those in southern India were measured in both ways. In southern India, it depended on the hunter (and not on the local habits).
The difference between the two methods always posed problems, but I think they are overdoing it. Those who had experience with both methods agreed it usually was about 6 inches in an adult male tiger. If the tiger was a large male and the hunter a slopper, the difference could be as much as 8-12 inches. In north-west India, however, hunters who had experience with both methods agreed the difference was 2-5 inches (two for females and five for large males). In Cooch Behar, the difference in ten adult males measured in both ways was 5,45 inches (13,84 cm.). All in all, it was a bit of a mixed bag.
To conclude. It is important to remember that tigers were measured in a different way in different parts of India before Independance. In northern India, measuring a tiger was considered a sacred ritual. They took their time, which, of course, resulted in a limited difference between both methods. Same in Central India. In other regions, things appeared to be a bit more casual.
LENGTH
Those loaded with experience agreed tigers in northern India were larger (longer and heavier) in northern India. In spite of that, most of those who wrote books were unable to produce a tiger over 10.6 measured 'over curves' (roundabout 10 feet straight) in that part of India, whereas there are quite many reliable reports on ten feet tigers (measured 'between pegs') in Central India. What to make of that?
One is the difference related to averages. Two is it would have been easier to find an exceptional animal when there were ten tigers to every one today. The information I have leaves no room for interpretations or mistakes: tigers of 9.8 straight and over were found everywhere in India a century ago.
So how about these averages for different parts of India then?
I have well over 500 measurements of adult male tigers I consider reliable. About half of these relate to tigers measured 'between pegs'. There is, in my opinion, no doubt regarding averages: tigers in Nepal and northern India were longer than those in other parts of India. Although I'm not done yet, my guess is adult males in southern India average about 9 feet 'between pegs' (a bit longer in the south-west and a bit shorter in the south-east), about 9.2 'between pegs' in Central India (those in the eastern part a bit longer and those in the western part a bit shorter) and about 9.4 'between pegs' in northern India (those in the north-west are a bit longer than those in the north-east). There's no doubt that Nepal tigers exceed 9.4 'between pegs', but I didn't get to an average yet. Compared to Amur tigers today (between 9.7-9.8 'between pegs' for males of 36 months and over and definitely over 9.8 'between pegs' for adult males of 48 months and over), Nepal tigers are a bit shorter, but not by much (1-3 inches).
This year, I will construct tables on the size of tigers everywhere. With 'size', I mean length, weight, skull and body dimensions. Some of the tables will be posted. When I have the book of Smythies, I will post a few scans.
Since body length is the best correlation to body weight in Tigers, it pretty much ties perfectly in with the idea that N. Indian Tigers are probably the largest of all cats in the human era.
About Boar, I am not surprised one bit. I have seen some absolutely massive boar and when you watch predation on them, it takes extreme effort for a tiger just to penetrate the animal. Unless a tiger gets a throat hold, its in for a very long battle. Boars are so close to the ground that their throats are not easily accessible.
But amur tigers are longer...arent they?
Not really, they are pretty much the same dimensionally if you look over verified records of the past 40 years. Wild amurs are an enigma just because they have seen such a mass depletion since the time of hunters and the records they alleged. But from the verified records I see, Indian are just as long and tall. Just indians put on more mass, but may be siberians could reach their former glory if they had half of their habitat back and all the prey that came with it.
02-13-2015, 08:58 AM( This post was last modified: 02-13-2015, 11:52 AM by peter )
I was aware of them tables, but thanks anyhow. The only one I consider reliable for now is the original table on Amur tigers. The reason is they knew how to measure tigers. This is from the appendix:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I'm not that sure about the information on Indian tigers for reasons to be explained later.
Length, however, is just one aspect of a big cat. There is a lot more. My take is tables should reflect the different stages big cats experience. In tigers, there are adolescents without a territory (18-36 months); young adults (37-60 months) who occupy inproductive areas; prime animals with productive territories and old animals. Displaced tigers, when they are able to evade or survive a fight, often are forced to the fringes. A century ago, many displaced tigers died of old age. Today, as a result of small reserves and intense competition (India) or difficult conditions (Russia), that's out of the question.
In skulls, it's easy to distinguish between immatures, young adults, adults and old animals. The differences between these groups often can be expressed in measurements. One would like to see similar tables with body measurements and weights. A table that includes all categories would be inclusive, but uninforming. One has to distinguish between categories. The reason is differences between categories often can be expressed in measurements. They allow for insight in typical features of each category. In this way, one is able to connect measurements and weights to age and change and contribute to knowledge. Most unfortunately, tables of that nature, as far as I know, have not been produced. The only distinction is adult or not and mistakes are often made. The result is many tables are confusing or uninforming. A pity.
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
