WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
God, that just shows how bad my eyes are. I even have glasses on and I still couldn't read that correctly.
TFS I'd imaging an infected canine would be extremely brutal for a big cat that needs to eat without pain. @peter Does the 300lb spring balance scale only measure to 300lbs or does it mean something else? 
Burton had two scales: a 300-lbs. Salter's spring balance and one of 200 lbs. He wrote the 300 lbs. balance was accurate before and after use. Read the intro above the actual table.
About the book I mentioned. Here's the cover:  *This image is copyright of its original author One of the photographs was posted before. This is the tiger Burton shot in northern Indian in February 1924. Although just below average in length (9.7 'over curves' and 9.1 'between pegs') as a result of the short tail (2.9), he was a muscular animal:  *This image is copyright of its original author
(06-02-2015, 04:47 AM)'peter' Wrote: Burton had two scales: a 300-lbs. Salter's spring balance and one of 200 lbs. He wrote the 300 lbs. balance was accurate before and after use. Read the intro above the actual table. Looks like a large animal, I'm just trying to get an idea if the weight was estimated or distributed across two scales since neither had the capacity to weigh the animal?
First a question. I assume you are aware of the fact two tigers were discussed in the last posts? The man-eater shot near the Godavary River in December 1912 (the 9.9 tiger of 416 lbs.) and the 9.1 tiger shot in February 1924 northern India? Yes? Ok. Just checking.
As for the 9.9 Godavary River tiger of 416 lbs. I have no idea how he was weighed. If you have two scales of 300 and 200 lbs. and the tiger bottoms the largest scale, different methods can be used to get to a result. I could describe a few, but Burton didn't say how he did it. I assume he had good reasons. What I know is he had two scales, of which the 300 lbs. scale was tested before and after use. It was accurate. One more thing. Mistakes and cheating just wasn't done in those days, especially when it was about India and tigers and officers were involved. I've read countless debates and the one thing that stuck was cheating wasn't even considered. The reason was honour. Even a minor mistake could mean loss of face and curtains. I've posted time and again about the debates on methods, tapes, accuracy and sportsmanship in magazins and newspapers. In nearly every old book, there is a chapter on methods, measurements, accuracy and records. It really wasn't about that, but about the rules of conduct. This is the reason I prefer them old boys over all others when it is about measurements, methods, accuracy and records. Most posters, educated amateurs and biologists, however, dismiss old records are unreliable crap. They only trust records of today's biologists. But nearly all debates about big cat size on forums are about (the interpretation of) records of today's biologists. This should tell you something. Let's take Packer. He knows so much about lions, that he's only able to communicate about them with the Lion Spirit. For him, knowledge is about the spiritual dimension. If he was to write a book about lions, it would be about that. Packer will probably die studying lions in Africa, but he has no clue as to methods and measurements. The reason is he is just not that interested. But the boys in India were, back then. It nearly was a matter of life and death for them. If Burton says the Godavary tiger he shot in December 1912 was 9.9 'between pegs' and 416 lbs., than that's more than good enough for me.
ABOUT A FIGHT BETWEEN TWO BULLS, ONE OF WHICH WAS A TIGER - III
The book of Knowles, as said before, has 24 stories. Although many of them would be headed under 'uncanny', they really happened. Knowles just reported on what he saw with his own eyes. Today, life has become quite predictable, but back then they said you never knew what would happen. The main reason for the change between then and now is us. In the twenties of the last century, British India, larger than India today, had close to 350 million people. Today, India has at least 1,2 billion. When humans took over, wild country quickly disappeared. And so did the animals, the forest spirits and a dimension difficult to describe. All in all, about 90-95% of the old world was lost. It was replaced by us and everything we stand for. As humans are one and the same all over the planet and most of us are governed by a few things only, the world has become very flat in more than one way. Another result is differences between regions have disappeared. Seen one tree, seen 'm all, my uncle said. Seen one region, seen 'm all, I would add. So what about these old books and the world we lost? I'd say they represent something most of us do not know, let alone understand. This is the main reason the old boys are largely dismissed. If we want to give those that are no longer heard a voice, we need to start with the world that was lost. For this reason, I will post on things considered more or less typical a century ago. Before I do, I want to talk about a few things I consider more or less typical for the world that was lost. Below, you'll find an overview of a few things that stuck. I'll start with elephants. e - Elephants In the 30 years he was in India, Knowles visited northern India in particular. If you was invited for a party (usually a shoot) in that part of India and wanted to hunt, you needed elephants. Well-trained elephants. As this usually took many years, trained elephants and experienced mahouts were in great demand. Elephants were described as very sensitive animals. And unpredictable. They would stand firm in times of danger, but they could also panic for no reason at all. Just just never knew. They also didn't like their wild relatives. Wild elephants were considered as dangerous by many. The reason was males. Every wild herd usually had a male close by most of the time. At times the herd attracted more than one male. If males were not in musth, they were either preparing for battle or recovering from one. As a result of their attitude, bulls often got into conflicts with other animals. And humans. Roque elephants feature in 6 of the 24 stories, meaning they were not scarce at all. Every region had a few. A century ago, they were considered a very real danger for those living in or close to the immense forests. Knowles, more than once, had very narrow escapes and I mean narrow. In this respect, he compared to Corbett and Kenneth Anderson. Elephants, in spite of their great frame and weight, are very difficult to find. A big bull with a grudge is a dangerous animal. And in stalking, he's second to none. More than once, Knowles and his companions, very experienced woodsmen, were completely surprised by a rogue. With surprise, I mean that the roque had approached unseen to within a few yards. Without their rifles, they had no option but to sit it out, knowing that each wrong move would be the last one. At times, they were saved by their presence of mind and at times they were saved by fate. On one occasion, a man responsible for the buffalo's prevented a sure attack. The relation between elephants and tigers is difficult to describe. Most wild elephants are afraid of tigers. With good reason. Male tigers often followed herds to kill young elephants. These experienced males also attacked immatures and adult females. Male elephants, on the other hand, would stand up to them. When they got a chance to stalk them, it was curtains for the tiger. But when things went wrong, the table was turned. Some fights were witnessed and they were terrible. In many cases, the elephant didn't die directly, but from the infection. When they fought elephants, tigers tried to get between their legs. When they couldn't, they attacked the front legs and the trunk. In one of the stories ('Comedy and tragedy in the jungles'), Knowles and another hunter, a Mrs. B., were waiting for a very large male tiger in a machan. The bait, a buffalo, was surprised by a herd of wild elephants and became entangled in the rope. Knowles climbed down to help him, but the buffalo wouldn't let him come close. While he was at it, the tiger made an early appearance. Knowles saw the huge male from twenty yards or so. As he didn't have his rifle and wasn't able to get back to the machan, he was dependant on Mrs. B. Then the thunderstorm he hadn't seen unleashed. At the same moment, the herd of wild elephants returned. This time, there was a big bull with them. The tiger and the bull had met that very morning. When the forest was pitch black and lightning struck, Mrs. B. shot the tiger in the shoulder. The tiger immediately attacked the young buffalo, who, according to Knowles, was completely destroyed. While this was happening, the machan was nearly blown apart by the storm. While Mrs. B. was clinging to the tree with everything she had, the rifles came crashing down. At that moment, the bull elephant attacked the tiger. The tiger got away, but turned to attack him when he, severely wounded by the bullit in his shoulder, collapsed. The bull pinned the wounded tiger to the ground and gored him. After trampling his body, he, for some reason, forgot about Knowles and Mrs. B. and returned to the forest. A very narrow escape. Other stories about roques were more tense, because they, like man-eating tigers, really stalked and hunted humans. In 'A roque elephant', Knowles described how a rogue had surprised and terrified his sisters and two of his friends when they were walking in the forest. He heard them scream and ran to their assistence. The problem was he, like the others, didn't have his rifle with him. He only had a stick and used it to keep the giant at bay. Step by step, the elephant was pushed back, but only a few yards. For some minutes, the status quo didn't change. Than local people spotted the elephant. They knew him, started screaming and ran. The bull went after them and got a man, who was torn apart, limb by limb. Knowles saw it, but could do nothing. The sword of fate is indiscriminate, but it seems to spare those able to keep their nerve more often than not. This picture belongs in a movie:  *This image is copyright of its original author
Thanks Peter for this page scan, it has some interesting information particularly on wild buffalo size. Were all these animals shot in northern India?
(06-02-2015, 05:48 AM)'peter' Wrote: First a question. I assume you are aware of the fact two tigers were discussed in the last posts? The man-eater shot near the Godavary River in December 1912 (the 9.9 tiger of 416 lbs.) and the 9.1 tiger shot in February 1924 northern India? Yes? Ok. Just checking. Yes, I was just asking about the 416lb tiger, because he had quite large forelimbs and chest girth but it was an estimation I assume if neither scale were capable of weighing above 300lb. In regards to the 9.1 Tiger from 1924, is that the one on the cover? He looks like a robust tiger, where there any weights or measurements attached to him? If you already posted them, my apologies. Pckts\ dateline='\'1433262456' Wrote:peter\ dateline='\'1433206132' Wrote: First a question. I assume you are aware of the fact two tigers were discussed in the last posts? The man-eater shot near the Godavary River in December 1912 (the 9.9 tiger of 416 lbs.) and the 9.1 tiger shot in February 1924 northern India? Yes? Ok. Just checking. A - the Godavari tiger shot in December 1912 The 416 lbs. man-eater was a male who, according to Burton, would have taped 10 feet 'between pegs' if he would have been measured directly after death. The tiger was shot when he returned to his kill at about midnight and was measured and weighed the next day. I can confirm that different hunters (J. Hewett and B. Berg) wrote a tiger measured a day after he was shot is about 3 inches shorter than he would have been directly after death. This is a result of rigor mortis. Also remember the tiger was shot some months earlier. They found a bullit in his jaw. The tiger survived, but his left upper canine, probably also hit by the bullit, was nearly gone and Burton found the cavity loaded with maggots. He thought the tiger, as a result of his injury, would have been unable to eat fresh kills. This would have resulted in a loss of weight and a bad condition. The weight wasn't a guesstimate. The tiger was 416 lbs. exactly. A bit below expectation considering his head and body length and the girth of his chest and limbs, but my guess is it was a result of his injury. How get to an accurate weight when the tiger bottomed the capacity of the scales Burton had? You cut the tiger in pieces and weigh each part seperately. This is what they did with gaurs, buffalo's and elephants. b - The northern India tiger shot in February 1924 The tiger shot in northern India isn't on the cover of the book based on the diaries of Col. R.W. Burton. He is on the second scan in that post. The tiger on the cover of the book is another animal. You could have known, as the photograph is way better than the photograph taken in 1924. The tiger shot in February 1924 in northern India was 6.4 in head and body. If we add the 2.9 tail, the result is 9.1 in total length 'between pegs'. Measured 'over curves', he was 6 inches longer (9.7). The tiger wasn't weighed, but his chest circumference was 4.7 (139,70 cm.), or about similar to the Sauraha male tiger who drowned in a pool in Nepal when he was darted. The tiger shot in 1924 wasn't weighed, but it was a massive animal. More info in the JBNHS, Vol. 30, pp. 652-656 ('An encounter with a fighting tiger'). (06-02-2015, 11:01 PM)'peter' Wrote:Yes I meant the 2nd image with the hunter standing behind him.(06-02-2015, 09:27 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:(06-02-2015, 05:48 AM)'peter' Wrote: First a question. I assume you are aware of the fact two tigers were discussed in the last posts? The man-eater shot near the Godavary River in December 1912 (the 9.9 tiger of 416 lbs.) and the 9.1 tiger shot in February 1924 northern India? Yes? Ok. Just checking. He looks like quite a robust specimen, definitely seems to be in the Sauraha male category. I know the chopping up method is used for the guar I'm curious as to its accuracy, I'm sure its close. I do notice they allocate blood and other fluid loss in the guar so I assume they do the same for the tigers. I wonder how much they do and if its accurate or not, but either way Im sure its not going to make much of a difference. I imagine if that tiger didn't have a bullet lodged in its jaw and was infected you would no doubt see a good sized tiger. Amazing how large the guar were, btw. They are massive boys 
ACCOUNT OF A DEADLY STRUGGLE BETWEEN A SUN BEAR AND A SUMATRAN TIGER (SUMATRA ISLAND, INDONESIA). TIGER AND BEAR DIED.
While nearly all animals have a particular area which they frequent-as the low coast region, the plateaus of these tropical lands, or the higher parts of the mountains-the rhinoceros lives indifferently anywhere between the sea-shores and the tops of the highest peaks. This species has two " horns," the first being the longer and more sharply pointed, but the Java species has only one. The natives here know nothing of the frequent combats between these animals and elephants, that are so frequently pictured in popular works on natural history. The Resident has, however, told me of a combat between two other rivals of these forests that is more remarkable. When he was controleur at a small post, a short distance north of this place, a native came to him one morning, and asked, if he should find a dead tiger and bring its head, whether he would receive the usual bounty given by the government. The Resident assured him that he would, and the native then explained that there had evidently been a battle between two tigers in the woods, near his kampong, for all had heard their howls and cries, and they were fighting so long that, he had no doubt, one was left dead on the spot. A party at once began a hunt for the expected prize, and soon they found the battle had not been between two tigers, as they had supposed, but between a tiger and a bear, and that both were dead. The bear was still hugging the tiger, and the tiger had reached round, and fastened his teeth in the side of the bear's neck. The natives then gathered some rattan, wound it round them, just as they were, strung them to a long bamboo, and brought them to the office of the Resident, who gave a full account of this strange combat in his next official report. These bears are popularly called " sun" bears, Helarctos Malayanus, from their habit of basking in the hot sunshine, while other bears slink away from the full light of day into some shady place. The Resident at Bencoolen had a young cub that was very tame. Its fur was short, fine, and glossy. It was entirely black, except a crescent-shaped spot of white on its breast, which characterizes the species. Source: Travels in the East Indian archipelago (Albert Smith Bickmore) ► books.google.com.br/books?id=t3dCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA510&lpg=PA510&dq=%22but+between+a+tiger+and+a+bear%22&source=bl&ots=4_ddwAclQ9&sig=KBEkMej4XIN33ZNWH0dNXyT3rW0&hl=pt-BR&ei=mevhTtjjB4G2tweP2fX_BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22but%20between%20a%20tiger%20and%20a%20bear%22&f=false Has this been posted yet? (06-03-2015, 11:54 AM)'faess' Wrote: ACCOUNT OF A DEADLY STRUGGLE BETWEEN A SUN BEAR AND A SUMATRAN TIGER (SUMATRA ISLAND, INDONESIA). TIGER AND BEAR DIED.Haven't seen it, but Im skeptical of "stories from the locals" when interpreted either, not that it couldn't happen just the embellishment that usually comes with it. But I have been curious in regards to Sumatran Tiger relations with Bears, Elephant and Rhino out there. Sumatrans are so small that I doubt they are going to be able to prey on adults, but babies Im sure fall victim. (06-05-2015, 10:10 AM)'faess' Wrote: What do you mean by that? That suatrans can't kill sun bears? Not sure how you got that? Of course they can, Im just skeptical of an account where both died in eachoters arms. Usually not how encounters go, they seperate lick their wounds, die of infection or a distance away from eachother or one falls victime then the other etc.... I also read that the Sunda Rhino is rarely seen in sumatra and I wonder that relationship with Tigers as well. Sumatru was quite the place before us humans mucked it up. It was a treasure trove of beatiful and large herbivores just shrunken down a bit.
ABOUT A FIGHT BETWEEN TWO BULLS, ONE OF WHICH WAS A TIGER - V
f - the northern India tiger f1 - Appearance and behaviour " ... Watered by the many mountain rivers that help to swell the mighty Ganges, this fertile, sub-Himalayan country is the home of the wild elephant, and the massively built tiger of northern India, whose fur for dazzling beauty - the male growing an appreciable mane - is famous thoughout this vast peninsula, and even far beyong the confines of the awe-inspiring Himalayas ... " (pp. 9-10). In 'Comedy and tragedy in the jungle', Knowles and another hunter, a Mrs. B., sat up for a large male tiger: " ... After a while, we saw some bamboo clumps shaking up on the plateau, and heard an occasional crash. We immediately suspected wild elephants - apparently grazing. Then it happened that the young buffalo below our tree got restless, and managed to get a front leg entangled awkwardly in his rope. It looked as if the leg might easily be broken, and we felt sorry for the poor creature. I climbed down off the tree to release the leg, leaving Mrs. B. with my heavy rifle, which I could not manage to bring down with me ... " (pp. 24). While trying to free the leg of the young buffalo, Knowles heard a crow cawing on the other side of the grove. As he knew they often follow tigers, Knowles quickly crouched low and took cover behind a fairly wide anthill, about four feet high: " ... Peeping between two small, pyramidical spires - about a foot high - erected by the thoughtful jungle ants on top of their castle, I suddenly beheld - bent low to the ground - a massive red head, with a shaggy mane drooping over a thick neck. Then, moving most stealthtily, with cautious halts to listen, there came into gradual view the dazzling drapery in 'rouge et noir', of that dreaded jungle gambler and cattle thief. An exceptionally pale shade of yellow seemed to run along the low length of his stomach, and a beautiful, checkered tail, like a gliding snake - trailed the ground behind him, a magnificent specimen of a Himalayan monster ... " (pp. 25). In another story ('A tragic mistake': the champions of Islam'), Knowles and Diggs, trying to locate a large male tiger thriving on cattle, suddenly see a wounded barking deer. The wounded little deer sits down, unable to proceed further owing to its wounds. When the noise of the monkeys increases in volume and they spot an invisible animal, Knowles glances up the ridge: " ... Under the cover of some fine waving grass, we see something of a dark red colour moving along stealthily. It looks like a large jungle cat, and almost seems to melt away against the reddish brown background of a clump of leaves soaked by the recent shower of rain. At this very instant, a low 'mee-aw' comes from below, at the back of our elephant, and we glance down simultaneously. To our surprise we see another cat standing about twenty paces below our position. It has apparently just come up from the deep nullah that we had negociated a few moments ago. We glance at the little barking deer to our right front, still sitting down in its pain, and moving its small head about restlessy, with terror in its large, beautiful, pathetic eyes. Tiger cubs, whispers Diggs in my ear. 'Watch', he repeats, 'here is something worth studying. The cubs are apparently learning how to kill, and the tigress must be hiding somewhere close by, watching their practise attempts, and keeping an eye on our elephant. She has probably wounded this little barking deer to make the lessons of attack easier for her cubs' ... " (pp. 210). f2 - Size The first story ('A moonlight ghost') is about a midnight hunt for a man-eating tiger who shut down an entire tea-estate in northern India. Knowles, his friend Bill (the manager of the estate) and an assistent (Jackson) decide to travel to a bungalow on the out-factory in an old bullock cart. The bulls have tinkling bells around their neck to attract the man-eater. Everyone knew the Banwali bungalow was often visited by the man-eater. On their way to the bungalow, they hear and see a big black bear and a sambar startled by the tiger. They then now the man-eater is following. When they reach the bungalow, a wild tusker suddenly emerges from the forests. The bullocks come to a dead halt, frozen with terror. The tusker, meaning business, attacks and the bullocks bolt. The three men are swung our of the cart. Two of the three manage to enter the bungalow. Jackson can't be found. When Knowles is attending to his friend, badly shaken and dazed, he sees something he will never forget: " ... My frightened voice sounds far away. I have placed Bill in a chair near the table, and I am about to pour out some whisky with a trembling hand - listening to the wild elephant crashing through the jungle again - when suddenly we see something huge in front of the wide open door: 'What is that? ', Bill gasps out queerly. An enormous dark shadow the size of a buffalo looms up as if by sudden magic, obliterating the moonlight. It has a colossal cat's head - am I dreaming? I am about to shout 'Jackson', but I am choked, dazed, transfixed with terror. Bill sits silent - staring, staring! The huge shadow squats down deliberately before us, stretching out two formidable paws and placing them on the threshold of the door. His great tail sways behind, and beats with loud knocks on the shining pavement of the veranda - my God! - in satisfaction of his mind. His great head is erect, looking at us, fascinating us - so silent, so still ... " (pp. 5-6). There are more stories in which male tigers feature. In each, they are described as huge Himalayan 'monsters'. Was Knowles a novice with zero experience? Was he overdoing it? Not really. Knowles had 30 years of experience and saw plenty of tigers. And his stories, I think, were anything but overdone. He wrote about the things he saw and in those days you could see a lot. Those who had personal experience with Indian tigers agreed tigers in northern India were larger than in other regions. Many males were massively built animals, Knowles wrote. Is there more reliable info on the size of Himalayan tigers? Plenty. Sir John Hewett ('Jungle Trails in Northern India', 1938, Natraj Publishers reprint, 2008), Eardley-Wilmot ('The Life of a Tiger', 1911), Carrington Turner ('Man-eaters & Memories', 1959, Natraj Publishers reprint, 2007) and the Sunquists ('Tiger Moon', 1988, and 'Wild Cats of the World', 2002) all confirmed Himalayan tigers are large animals. The longest tiger skull I know of (16,25 inches in greatest total length) belonged to a 10.2 tiger shot by Hewett's daughter. I have posted a table with skull measurements of tigers shot in northern India some time ago. The table, constructed by Eardley Wilmot, shows some male tiger tigers shot in northern India well exceeded 15 inches in greatest total skull length. The Hewett skull was measured by an experienced taxidermist and Eardley Wilmot was as educated as they come. Hewett measured tigers 'over curves'. The 45 males he and others shot, including a number of immatures, averaged 9.95 inches in total length. If measured 'between pegs', the average would have ranged between 9.45 and 9.65 inches. I propose to use 9 feet 5,5 inches (288,29 cm.) as a hypohesis for now. Carrington Turner, an experienced Forest Officer, measured the tigers he shot in Kumaon 'between pegs'. His findings (most males were 9.5-9.6 and one just exceeded 10.0) roughly confirmed Hewett's measurements. Maybe northern India male tigers, if anything, top 9.6. If correct, it means tigers living just south of the Himalayas are almost as long as wild Amurs (who average about 9.8). The information about weight is confusing. Hewett's males averaged 435,7 lbs. (range 355-570), but his sample of 18 included at least two and probably three immatures. Furthermore, 12 male tigers tigers described as 'heavy' or 'very heavy' were not weighed. Same for 5 very long males shot in Nepal. Based on the information he provided, I got to an average of 480-490 lbs. for an adult male. The Sunquists, about a century later, weighed 7 males. They averaged 235 kg. unadjusted and 221 kg. adjusted. One of them was not adult. As 221 kg. equals 488-489 lbs., the 7 Nepal male tigers confirmed the result of my calculation. In the last four decades, at least two Nepal males bottomed a 600-pound scale. As a result of a lack of details, some biologists argued they would have been below 500 when adjusted. Statements of that nature from professionals, in my opinion, are very close to deliberate misinformation. One could argue a lot more, but there's no question Himalayan tigers (Nepal and northern India) are the heaviest wild big cats today. And by quite a margin at that. Maybe Kazirangha tigers are close in weight and maybe they are not. If we use the information of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, the conclusion is tigers in northwest India and Nepal are a bit longer. I know the Cooch Behar tigers were heavier (460 pounds including a few gorged specimens and 453 pounds without them), but we have to remember Hewett wasn't able to weigh many large tigers. I propose to use the average I calculated (480-490 pounds) for northwest India and 450-460 pounds for the northeast for now. If we use 420-430 pounds (Miquelle) for Amurs today, the conclusion is northwest India tops the list, followed by northeast India. Crater lions, based on the informaton we have (chest circumference 127-134 cm.), could just top today's Amurs, but my guess is it's too close to call. We also have to remember the relation between chest girth and weight is different in tigers. In Indian tigers, total length seems to be the best indicator for weight. In Amur tigers, chest girth could be a better indicator. But male 'Luke', at 212 kg. and not mature (7 years of age or more), tops today's list, although he was smaller than average in most respects. I do not doubt some individuals in central India (tigers), South Africa (lions) and the Crater (lions) exceed 9.10 straight and 550 pounds empty every now and then (600 not entirely excluded), but at the level of averages Himalayan tigers probably top nearly every table. But one day in the near future, they will find an Amur close in size to his largest captive relatives. The reason is conditions are improving in Russia. Genes like good conditions. The question is not if he will be found, but if they will be able to capture him before he destroys the snare. The Aldrich footsnare could be less reliable than we think. This is one of the two Royal Chitwan male tigers who bottomed a 600-pound scale. Well before he did, his great size amazed the Sunquists. When he was darted again some years later, they tracked and located him using his radio-collar. This means there was no need to bait him in order to dart him. We'll never know if he was empty or not when he was weighed and again bottomed the scale, but there's no doubt he was a large and robust male tiger:  *This image is copyright of its original author I could post a lot more from northern India, but this one, first posted by Rofl, is just as telling:  *This image is copyright of its original author f3 - Relations with other animals and humans The relation between tigers and elephants was already discussed. One could say it was anything but friendly. Knowles wrote about three fights. In all three, the tiger had been wounded before the elephants were engaged. The wild tusker who gored and trampled the large tiger Knowles and Mrs. B. were after (see above) wasn't badly wounded, because the tiger succumbed to the bullit wound when he was about to engage the tusker. The two captive elephants, however, were quite badly wounded. One of them needed months to recover. Today, we know tigers sometimes hunts in pairs. A century ago, this wasn't common knowledge. In 'A clever jungle dacoit', Knowles writes about a large male tiger known for his preference for buffalo. The lame tiger, as he was known, had met a female. Although courting, food wasn't entirely forgotten. The alliance decided for buffalo. The male walked to a road known for buffalo carts and waited for a cart. When one arrived, he paid his respects. The buffalo's immediately bolted and the tiger calmly disappeared into the jungle. Not much later, the buffalo's returned as quick as they had bolted. The reason was they had been confronted by the female. Crazed with terror, one of the buffalo's escaped. He was killed by the lame tiger. The tigress got the kill and the lame tiger then tried to lure the second. The owner of the cart, aware of the returning male tiger, made a run for it with his remaining 'child', as he called them. It was then that he met Knowles, his brother-in-law and their elephant. They decided to locate and shoot the male tiger. While waiting for him, they heard the buffalo call time and again. Not one word from the tiger. Was it the buffalo who was calling? Probably not, the brother-in-law thought. He was proven right. Another firsthand example of a tiger imitating a buffalo. Apart from 'The moonlight ghost', the book has another story about a man-eater ('On the tracks of a man-eating tiger'). The tiger who featured in this story was a lame male who terrorized his would-be-victims by roaring just before he attacked. He did it twice a week, the Thanadar of the police station said. Knowles decided to pay the tiger a visit with a friend of his brother-in-law. Seated on the back seats of the car, they drove up and down the road the tiger had used so often. The tiger didn't disappoint them: " ... We had but scarcely turned our heads a moment to listen, when suddenly a deafening shriek from the chauffeur at the wheel, in front of Denis, made us turn sharply round again. We could scarcely believe our eyes. Denis' rifle was instantly at the shoulder with the muzzle up against a monstrous grinning head that had in its jaws - between its yellow fangs - the loose khaki of the driver's right arm. An enormous striped shoulder was lurched over, resting on the side of the car, with a great forearm and paw pressed round the driver's waist, as if the intention was to lift the poor man out bodily. Standing on his hind legs, the mighty brute's head and neck were on a level with the steering wheel. The dreaded monster had slunk out of the forest suddenly, like a cat, and moving with the rapidity and silence of a streak of lightning, before the accompaniment of thunder, was on top of us before we were aware of it. Click-click! There was no report from Denis' rifle, and my heart sank. I could see down the brute's huge throat, as he turned with the spluttering of a steam engine to threaten us behind. A terrible grin and growl warned us again, as my rifle came up instantly, pointing straight at his face. I pulled my trigger - but there only came the sickening sound of a click! A roar followed; and the brute almost lifted the driver, who lay limp and unconscious with pain and fear ... " (pp. 306-307). And then, round the corner, came salvation: " ... The monster tiger let go his grip, and limped back to the edge of the forest, about fifteen paces away, where he stood, puzzled for a moment at the sound of the newly arrived car. 'Sahib, your cartridges', said Denis brave cook (the driver of the newly arrived car), as he came from behind and handed them in. 'You left them in the bungalow'. My rifle, too, was now in order. The tiger stood before us, and with the hair standing on his neck and with arched back, he put his head down and emitted a terrible roar. The next instant a volley rang out, and we heard the echo of a distant ridge. A dull thud on the ground followed. We had at last rid the neighbourhood of the famous man-eater. He was a huge beast, measuring 10 ft. 3 inches ... " (pp. 307). This could be the lame man-eater, but I'm not sure:  *This image is copyright of its original author All stories are based on experience. They are as real as it gets. Most are interesting. A few are amazing. A bit too amazing, some would no doubt say. But if they would read other books published between 1850-1940, they might, as I did, conclude India could have been an amazing place. Also remember Knowles was a professional writer who contributed to different magazins. If there's one thing he would have want to prevent, it would have been loss of face. My take on what I read in the old books is pragmatic. I've visited a few wild places, talked to people who were raised in wild places, interviewed a few hunters and talked to trainers. I also measured and observed captive big cats and measured hundreds of skulls. Based on what I saw, heard, read and experienced, I got to three conclusions. One is the human population has exploded in less than half a century only. The consequences are considerable. Wild places and wild animals are now all but gone. Two is a dimension difficult to describe had vanished as a result. Three is it is pointless to talk about it to others. They will say you live in the past. Life is about today and tomorrow, not yesterday. They are, of course, right. But you could always decide to write a book or start a forum. I would recommend it. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |