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

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART X


Northern India and Nepal (tigresses)


a - Sir John Hewett ('Jungle trails in northern India', 1938)

In Hewett's book, I found information about 26 tigresses, of which 23 were shot in northern India and 3 in Nepal. Apart from tigress 23 (shot in Janauary 1927), all were shot between 1883-1912. This means they, apart from tigress no. 23, were shot in about the same period as the tigresses shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam.

Talking about Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam. Hewett was invited by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar for a shoot in 1889 (and again in 1894):

" ... In February 1889, I was asked by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, Sir Narendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur, to a shoot. The Maharajah was one of the best sportsmen that ever lived. A fine shot, a great naturalist, and a most generous and considerate host, he combined in himself qualities which made him very popular with high and low, English and Indian alike. He had married in 1878 Suniti Devi, the eldest daughter of the religious reformer Brahmananda Keshub Chunder Sen, a most talented lady beloved by all who had the good fortune to know her. The Maharajah died in 1911, and during her life-time his widow lost four of her seven children, of whom two were successively Maharajahs of Cooch Behar. Late in life she lived for some years in England, but returned to India in November 1931, dying at Ranchi. A very remarkable memorial meeting was held at the Caxton Hall on November 28th, 1932, largely attended by the many English friends who survived her.

The Maharajah had a shoot every year, partly in his own State, partly in the reserved forests at Jalpaiguri in the province of Bengal, or on the Brahmaputra and near the foothills in Assam as far east as the Manas river. He had a fine line of elephants and, himself a great shikari, was assisted in managing his shoots by Colonel Alick Evans-Gordon, the Superintendent administring his State, Dick Bignell of the Bengal Police, his private secretary, and a number of very efficient Indian trackers.

An invitation to a shoot at Cooch Behar was something to talk about. The hospitality of the Maharajah was unbounded, life in the tents the ideal of good feeling and comfort, and, most important of all, the sport was bound to be good ... " (pp. 89-90 of the reprint).

This to say that Hewett and the Maharajah of Cooch Behar knew each other well. 

The tigers and tigresses Hewett shot or saw shot in that region (reprint, pp. 91-92), however, were omitted from the tables on northern India. They are in the tables on Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam posted before.

Table X:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This time, weight was expressed in kg. In the summary at the bottom of the table (in yellow), however, weight was expressed in both kg. and lbs. The Nepal averages for length and weight are based on 3 tigresses only, but the average for total length for northern India is quite reliable (n=23). Weight, however, is another matter. Only 7 tigresses were weighed.     

The table has one mistake: tigress 26 (shot in Nepal) isn't mentioned on page 173, but on page 174 of the reprint.

I made two averages for Nepal; one with and one without tigress 26. The decision to leave her out of the second was based on her length: she was so much shorter than the 2 others, that she could have been a large cub or a young adult (2-4 years of age). I could be wrong, though. I know of different tigresses of 8 feet 'over curves' who had cubs when they were shot (in that region) and, therefore, had to be adult.  

The table clearly says that tigresses with cubs, most unfortunately, were shot as well. Tigress 05 in Table X had two cubs when she was shot. One cub was killed, but the other escaped. He was under the observation of forest guards for some time and made a living on small animals. The cub survived and developed into a young adult, only to be shot 3 years later.


b - Conclusions

1 - Compared to those shot in northeastern India (n=35), tigresses shot in northern India (n=23) were a trifle longer (268,47 cm. as opposed to 267,22 cm., a difference of 1,25 cm.). Although they were very similar in total length measured 'over curves', chances are that the tigresses shot in northern India, compared to those shot in northeastern India, would have been a bit longer if they would have been measured 'between pegs' for the reason discussed in the previous post (see the bottom part of that post). How much longer is anybody's guess, but I propose 1-2 inches. If we add the difference mentioned above (1,25 cm.), the real difference (in a straight line) could have been about 2 inches (5,08 cm.).  

2 - The conclusion on total length is based on quite large samples and, for that reason, reliable.

3 - Compared to those shot and weighed in northeastern India (n=11), tigresses shot and weighed in northern India (n=7) were not as heavy (310,55 lbs. as opposed to 291,71 lbs., a difference of 18,84 lbs.).  

4 - The conclusion on weight, as a result of the smallish samples, is not as reliable as the conclusion on total length.

5 - In spite of -4-, it is remarkable that the tigresses shot in northeastern India, although a bit shorther (the 11 tigresses weighed averaged 270,22 cm. in total length) than the 7 tigresses shot in northern India (they averaged 273,23 cm. in total length), averaged 310,55 lbs., whereas the tigresses shot in northern India averaged 291,71 lbs. 

This, to a degree, confirms the conclusion on male tigers shot in northeastern India in that they, although a trifle shorter than those shot in the Central provinces in the same period, were significantly heavier (461,34 lbs. as opposed to 420 lbs.). I know northern India is different from the Central Provinces, but there is no question that the tigers and tigresses shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam were quite heavy for their length.


c - The Maharajah of Bikanir ('A sporting diary', JBNHS, Volume 27)

In the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (Volume 27, Misc. Notes, No. III, pp, 386-391), I found an article based on the diary of the Maharajah of Bikanir. It really is an extract with an introduction written by the editors of the JBNHS. I scanned the article and will post it in some time.

The table below (table XI) is based on the article and has measurements of 7 tigresses and 6 tigers shot in Nepal. To be complete, it has to be stated that table in the article (pp. 390) has not 13, but 17 tigers (7 males and 10 females). One of the 7 males was omitted, because it was a three-quarter grown cub. Of the 10 tigresses, 4 were omitted for the same reason. One of these was a three-quarter grown cub. The other 3 were grown daughters of tigress 06 in the table. Although not small by any means (they taped 8 feet half an inch, 8 feet 3 inches and 8 feet 3 and a half inches), they were still together when they were shot. Furthermore, they were shot in the same beat as their mother on March 31, 1920. Definitely not adult, that is. 

Although I'm not sure, I think the tigers were shot in the southeastern part of Nepal.

Table XI

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - Conclusions

1 - The 7 tigresses averaged 274,14 cm. in total length 'over curves' (range 256,54 - 292,10). This means they were 6,92 cm. longer than tigresses shot in northeastern India (tables I and II) and 5,67 cm. longer than tigresses shot in northern India (table X).  

2 - Tigress 06, at 292,10 cm. in total length, is the longest in the table.  

3 - In skull circumference, however, the 5 Cooch Behar tigresses (tables I and II) topped the list. The difference between them (average 79,88 cm.) and 2 tigresses shot in Nepal (71,13 cm.) was significant (97,5 cm. or 12,30%).

4 - The 6 Nepal males averaged 288,50 cm. in total length 'over curves'. One of them, however, was an old male. This tiger, at 256,54 cm., was well (17,60 cm.) shorter than an average Nepal tigress (...). Without him, the average was 294,89 cm. (very similar to the average of male tigers shot in northeastern India).     

5 - The averages in table XI, as a result of the small samples (6 males and 7 females), are not reliable. Same for the conclusions. This will be shown later. Reply

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XI


Northern India and Nepal (male tigers)


a - Sir John Hewett ('Jungle trails in northern India', 1938)

In his interesting book discussed before (see the previous 2 posts), I found information on 40 male tigers I consider reliable. Of these, 35 were shot in northern India. The other 5 were shot in Nepal. With the exception of tiger 35 (shot in January 1927 by his daughter), the tigers in northern India were shot between 1883 and 1912. The 5 Nepal tigers were shot between 1908 and 1912.

The book, to be complete, has more measurements of male tigers, but these were omitted for different reasons. The male mentioned on pp. 43 (reprint) was measured 'between pegs'. The tiger mentioned on pp. 59 also was omitted, because it isn't clear in what way he was measured. The measurements on pp. 91-92 are from tigers and tigresses shot in another region. Measurements and weights of cubs and immature animals (pp. 133, 136, 139 and 150) also were omitted.

Tiger 29, most probably a young adult, however, was included in the table. Same for tigers 26 and 27, who had been incapacitated, but seemed in good condition. These 3, however, were shorter than average and well below 400 lbs.        

All tigers in table XII were measured 'over curves'. As they, apart from tiger 14, were measured by Hewett himself or by those who measured tigers in the same way, we have to deduct not 5,45 inches (like in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam), but 2-3 inches to get to the total length measured 'between pegs'. For more information, I advice to read the previous posts. 

Table XII:

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - Remarks 

1 - Tiger 02 was " ... a monster. It took fourteen men to pull him out of the steep nulla at the bottom of which he lay ... " (pp. 82).

2 - Tiger 06, at 10 feet 5 and a half inches in total length, was the biggest Hewett ever measured.

3 - Tiger 26 was a bit shorter and not as heavy as most others. He had been severely incapacitated, but seemed in good condition: " ... it turned out that he had been wounded in the jaw some time before, both of his lower canine teeth having been shot away and part of his tongue cut off. It must have been very difficult for him to get his food, but he was not in bad condition and had a most lovely coat and ruff ... " (pp. 140).
 
4 - Tiger 30 was a large one. Hewett wrote " ... I was not able to weigh him, but he must have been about five hundred pounds. Quite recently, he had killed a bear. The forest guard had a theory that he jumped on the bear's back from a point of vantage ... " (pp. 149).

5 - There is a mistake in the remark on tiger 31. It said this tiger (no. 31) was taller and younger than tiger no. 35. This has to be 'tiger no. 30'. 
 
6 - Tiger 35, shot by his daughter Lorna, was measured the morning after he had been shot. Hewett wrote " ... I have never seen a finer tiger. He measured 10 feet 2 inches, and must have been an inch or two longer had the tape been put over him before he had got stiff. He was in his winter coat and very perfectly marked. The measurements of his skull as given by Messrs. Spicer & Co., of Leamington, who set up the skin, are in their words 'over the bone' as follows: Length - 16,25 inches, Weight cleaned 4 lb. 14 oz. ... " (pp. 180).

This is the longest skull of an Indian tiger that I know of, but I wonder about the part " ... over the bone ... ". The length of a skull has to be measured in a straight line. My guess is this skull was measured in a different way. Maybe 'over the bone' means 'over the curve of the skull'. This would explain the moderate weight and the lack of width.

I have no clue as to the real greatest length in a straight line, as I never measured a skull 'over the curve'. There is, I think, no question that the skull was not 16,25 inches in greatest total length in a straight line. My guess for now would be just over 14 inches.        

7 - As to the scale used to weigh the tigers in the table. Hewett wrote " ... I had a weighing machine made at Calcutta at the end of April 1908, and used it intermittently to weigh a number of tigers and tigresses and some leopards, but it was not always in good order, and I had often to send it away for repairs. As a result, though I was able to weigh some very good tigers, chiefly in 1909 and 1910, I only had it available twice when a 10-foot tiger was in the bag, and, finally, as the machine was going out of action so often, I did not bother to have it repaired ... " (pp. 72-73).  
 
8 - Tiger 34, although average in total length, was the heaviest by a margin. There are no details about this tiger. Hewett, however, wrote that the region in which he was shot was different from the northern part of the UP: " ... The jungle in the Mirzapur district is quite different from that in the northern part of the United Provinces. There are none of the swamps and big savannahs, such as exist at the foot of the Himalayas, and no sal forests. The country is very like certain parts of the Central provinces. It is very hilly and there are a number of small rivers ... " (pp. 161).   

9 - One more to finish this paragraph. It's about a tiger cub stung to death by bees or hornets: " ... In the reserved forest near Amangarh we found a tigress with three small cubs, of which we succeeded in capturing one, a female to which we gave the name of Tilli. She was a delightful little creature, and was most agreeable in her bamboo cage except when she was given a feed of the liver of sambar or spotted deer, when she would roar like a grown-up animal. We had every hope of making a real pet of her. But unfortunately this was prevented by a tragedy a short time after. We were going to ride up the hill next day from Kaladhungi to Naini Tal, and send her on in advance. The syces coming down the hill with our ponies succeeded, by smoking, in disturbing large numbers of bees, and probably hornets, near one of the halting grounds. The men taking Tilly uphill stupidly stopped there, and she was violently attacked and stung to death. The poor little thing succumbed just as she arrived at Naini Tal ... " (pp. 122).

Table XIII:

*This image is copyright of its original author

c - Conclusions

1 - Male tigers shot in northern India about a century ago averaged 297,18 cm. 'over curves', or 9.9 exactly. If we follow the advice of Hewett and deduct 3 inches, the average total length measured 'between pegs' would have been about 9.6 (289,56 cm.). This corresponds very well with the information I have on male tigers measured 'between pegs' in that region.

2 - The average for total length, as a result of the sample size, is reliable.

3 - Male tigers shot in northern India a century ago were (297,18 cm. - 294,84 cm.) 2,34 cm. longer than male tigers shot in northeastern India in the same period. If all males would have been measured 'between pegs', however, the difference most probably would have been more pronounced (about 9.6 in northern India as opposed to 9,25 or thereabout in northeastern India).

4 - Male tigers shot in northern India (n=15) averaged 433,27 lbs. (196,53 kg.). Although this average should be moderately reliable, my guess is it is not. The reason is the 15 male tigers actually weighed averaged 292,61 cm. (range 276,86 - 306,06), whereas the 20 males not weighed averaged 300,61 cm. (range 284,48 - 318,77). As it is known that the correlation between total length and weight is quite strong in adult male Indian tigers, the conclusion is those not weighed most probably were significantly heavier. I tried to to an average for all more than once. The average I got to in each attempt ranged between 460 and 490 lbs. For now, I propose to take 475 lbs.  

5 - The 53 male tigers weighed in northeastern India averaged 461,34 lbs. (209,26 kg.). At 295,46 cm. in total length 'over curves' (n=51), however, they were longer than the 38 males not weighed (293,00 cm.). They were also longer than the 15 males weighed in northern India (see -4-). If all males in northeastern India would have been weighed, the average most probably would have been a bit lower than the average found (461,34 lbs.), whereas the average in northern India, if all males had been weighed, definitely would have been well over 460 lbs. My guess for now is that male tigers in northern India, a century ago, would have been heavier than male tigers in northeastern India. The main reason, I think, would be total length. If all had been measured 'between pegs', the difference between male tigers in northern India and those in northeastern India most probably would have been about 3 inches. 

Also remember that the sample for northern India has 1 severely incapacitated male (tiger 26) and 1 young adult male (tiger 29). Without them, the average for length would have been 298,18 cm. (n=33), whereas the average for weight (n=13) would have been 444,46 lbs. (201,61 kg.).      

6 - Nepal tigers were a bit shorter than those shot in northern India, but heavier. One of the 5 males (tiger 37 in table XII) disappeared into a cave with a female during the beat (pp. 171). As this is unusual for a male courting a female, I concluded that both tigers could have been immature and, possibly, even related. Without him, the average total length for the remaining 4 males is 298,45 cm. and 487,50 lbs. As a result of the sample size, however, both averages are unreliable. Reply

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XII


Nepal (introduction)


a - A.E. Smythies ('Big game shooting in Nepal', Calcutta, 1942)

The book of Smythies was discussed at length in the first 5 posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal (posts 848, 850, 851, 852 and 855 of this thread). If you want to know more, the advice is to read them again. In this post, I will concentrate on the motivation of Smythies and his relation with the Maharajah of Nepal. This to get to some more insight and understanding. Before I do, however, I will inform you on a few things you might have missed.


b - A debate on methods and the interpretation (and validity) of measurements taken 'over curves'    

A few months before I started on tigers in northern India and Nepal, there was an interesting debate on the length of today's wild tigers. The first question was if tigers are measured 'between pegs' or 'over curves'. The answer is that they are measured 'over curves'. Not only in Russia, but everywhere. As this method can be applied in different ways, the next question was how the measurements have to be interpreted. This means we want to know how long a tiger measured 'over curves' is when he would be measured 'between pegs'. There was no clear answer to this question, as the two biologists who responded to it left too much room, not to say they seemed to contradict each other to a degree.  

During the attempt to get to a satisfactory answer, the debate more or less derailed. The reason was opinions started to get the better of those participating. As a result of the fruitless exchange, one of the participants decided to call it a day. A bit unsatisfactory perhaps, but the next-best option in a debate that had run it's course. Bad weather is not what is needed if you want to sail to Australia.      

If you are interested in the debate, you have to be prepared to travel. You could start in this forum. When you're done with the thread on methods and measurements, you have to visit the Carnivora forum and find the threads started by a poster called 'WaveRiders'. A bit confusing, but those participating couldn't agree on a common ground. 

Anyway. Some time before the debate started, there had been an exchange on Smythies. I don't remember the thread, but the point to remember is that WaveRiders thought the measurements in the book had to be taken with quite a bit of salt. The main reason is Smythies wasn't there when the tigers were measured. This means his book can't be considered as a prime source. This, of course, also means that WaveRiders doesn't take the Maharajah very serious. Apart from that, he wrote that Smythies didn't question the records at any point. His explanation for the somewhat servile attitude of Smythies is that he (Smythies) could have been grateful for the opportunity offered by the Maharajah. 

Although I agreed with the arguments he presented, I wasn't too sure about the proposal to dismiss the records. One reason was I had only read the book of Smythies once. In October and November 2015, I read it two more times. When I was done, I concluded that the measurements are reliable. This means they can be compared to other measurements taken 'over curves' in that period. The reasons were discussed before (see the posts mentioned above).

As to the attitude of Smythies. I think it's best to let him respond. Judging from the Preface (pp. v, vi and vii), Smythies expected to be questioned on both his motivation and the reliability of the measurements.    


c - 'Big game shooting in Nepal' - Preface I

" ... During the last decade of my service in the forests of the United Provinces, India, which adjoin the Nepal Terai forests on the west and south-west, I used to hear wonderful accounts of the Maharaja of Nepal, his shikar exploits and his phenomenal bags of tiger and other game. Being a shikari myself (as all Indian forest officers are) I was always anxious to hear further details, and when I came as Forest Advisor to Nepal I fortunately had an opportunity to see and read the very interesting shikar diaries of the Maharaja, translated into English, and illustrated with many wonderful photographs and pictures.

As I read through the pages, I soon realised what wonderful material there was for a shikar book, if only justice could be done to it. I ventured to suggest this, adding that such a book could only be written by one having an intimate knowledge of jungle life, and if His Highness so desired, I should be delighted to do anything I could to help. In due course His Highness approved of this suggestion, and I was given the honour and responsibility of the task.

My chief fear is that I have not done full justice to His Highness's unique shikar experiences. During my 30 years of service in the Indian Forest Department I have been in close contact with plenty of shikar (which in India is controlled by the Forest Department) and have had plenty of thrills of my own; I have met and  exchanged yarns with most of the famous big game sportsmen of northern India, but never have I seen or heard of anything like the Maharaja's shikar in Nepal ... " (pp. v).


d - Translation I  

Smythies had 30 years of experience in the Forest Department, was a hunter himself and had met with all well-known big game hunters of northern India. During his service, he heard great stories about Nepal and got interested. When he went there as a Forest Advisor and read the shikar diaries of the Maharajah, he was so impressed that he wanted to write a book based on the diaries. He told the Maharajah and got the opportunity to do so.

Was he invited to Nepal to write a book about the diaries? No. He went there as a Forest Advisor, not as a writer. When he got the opportunity to read the diaries and concluded they should be published, he said so and offered to do it himself. Not the other way round. Was he thankful? No doubt. Nepal was a paradise for big game hunters and all of them knew that Nepal was the place to be when you was interested in big tigers.  

Was Smythies 'servile'? I do not doubt that most of us, if not all, would get to a solid yes. But remember that today is very different from yesterday, especially in the department of social interaction.

When I was young, people treated others in a formal way. Anyone with a good education was a 'doctor' or a 'professor' in the eyes of many. Status was not something that was taken lightly. Those who enjoyed a bit of it often were treated as small kings and only very few of the spectators had the audacity to question anything, let alone enter the department of cynicism and protest. Not out in the open, that is. And then there was the University and Royalty. I remember I often was made to respect the old order the hard way as a child. Not seldom, those that got to status used every opportunity they had to dwarf others. Those right at the bottom of it all had to endure a lot. If we add that many of them also suffered from poverty, we can conclude that life was anything but nice. Compared to our parents, however, we were doing ok. They had to endure a decade of unemployment (the Great Depression), more intense poverty and, on top of it, 5 long years of war and destruction. After the war, the mess had to be cleaned and new perspectives had to be created. By them, of course. And no, there was no money. Not for them.  

This was in the country in which I grew up. In my eyes, it was a caste society. Compared to good old England, however, we could have been quite liberal, if not total marxists with zilch respect for law and order. The old order, I mean. If there ever was a western country that, castewise, compared to India, it has to be England, where birth and status were measured 'over curves'. Try to imagine what it must have been like for someone born and raised in a community without them. Only the very best would have been able to get to some kind of education and a decent job. The Empire (and British India in particular) must have offered new chances to many, but the old structures never really changed. 

Although it may seem different, I'm not ridiculing anything or anyone anywhere. I saw the last remnants of the old order and had mixed feelings about it. I definitely do not like any caste system, but have to admit that the old system, at least in the last part of its existence, produced things of value as well, one of these in the department of attitude. It also can be tasted in the books written by those who spent many years in British India and hunted tigers. I read many and enjoyed most. There's no question that the rigid, but solid, social system in which they lived, apart from inequality, produced not a few solid characters. This may seem to be insignificant, but it most certainly is not. In my country alone, millions now struggle with things that had to be, and often were, digested by their peers a few generations earlier. Remember they faced conditions we can't even imagine.  

The question if Smythies was 'servile', and if so, to what degree, has to be answered from a perspective we most probably do not have. Not a bad thing, but that doesn't mean we can walk straight to the other side and pass judgement without any further thought. I think Smythies was not much different from others. Rank and Royalty were decisive factors in those days. Smythies adapted, but he didn't dismiss himself. Far from it.

In the book, he isn't shy about his experience and it was his idea to write the book. Not the idea of the Maharajah. One could say he was self-aware and not shy to express an opinion against a man belonging to a different class. Two different worlds, they were. Not saying it wasn't done at all in those days, but it was quite remarkable. My take is Smythies genuinely liked and admired the Maharajah of Nepal, who, as a result of the method used to hunt them, shot tigers in very different circumstances than many others. It definitely took some pluck to keep your nerve, as the consequences could be severe.


e - 'Big game shooting in Nepal' - Preface II
 
WaveRiders said Smythies wasn't there when the tigers were hunted and measured. True. That, however, doesn't mean that he was a rooky who didn't know anything about the adventures he described. It also doesn't mean he didn't ask questions about the method used to measure tigers. As a hunter, he would have been most interested. It has to be remembered that he had a reputation to lose. My guess is this, to him, would have been more important than, to use his words, 'exaggerations and insincere flattery':

" ... Having been privileged to tour extensively in the great Terai forests, in the areas where the shoots take place, I have tried to give some idea of the atmosphere that surrounds these shoots, the appeal of these wild jungles to soem atavictic trait in modern man, the lure of trackless forests far from civilisation, the calls of wild animals often heard, the glorious scenery of plains and wooded hills, with the cold glitter of the everlasting snowsever visible on the far horizon.

I have tried to give some idea of this only independent Hindu kingdom, Nepal, of which the Maharaja is the sole and absolute ruler, of her tribes and peoples, her flora and fauna, and her geography. In this I have clearly drawn freely from previous books about Nepal - Percy Brown's 'Picturesque Nepal', Northley's 'The Gurkha's' and 'The Land of the Gurkha's'.

But the bulk of the book is based directly on the illustrated volumes of the Maharaja's shooting diary. The photographs and illustrations were taken and made chiefly by the artist-photographers, Major General Samar Shumshere and his son Major Balkrishna Shumshere. The coloured photographs, excepting the one of his Highness in Durbar dress, are all made by photographer Suba B.D. Joshi. To Brigadier-Colonel S.P. Thapa, b.sc., I must express my special indebtedness for his continuous assistence and advice in the preparation and publication of this book within such a short time and in arranging, under his personal supervision, the English translations of the 8 years' voluminous diaries, done by Pandit Lakshmi Prasad Devakota, b.a., ll.b., which I have often  quoted verbatim. Commanding General Kaiser Shumshere, whose knowledge of big game shikar in Nepal is very wide, has very kindly supplied much information and gone through the draft of various chapters, making corrections where necessary. Commanding General Bahadur, during a short stay in Nepal, very kindly went through some portions of the writings and made valuable suggestions and corrections. This has ensured that the descriptions of many exciting episodes, and the information regarding the measurements and numbers of animals shot, are really accurate and correct. Inaccuracies, exaggerations, and insincere flattery have been scrupulously avoided; this assurance seems adviceable, as many of the shikar incidents and so extraordinary, and some of the tiger and leopard measurements so huge, that a degree of scepticism might otherwise creep in ... " (pp. vi and vii).       

     
f - Translation II

This part of the Preface clearly says that Smythies knew that (some of) the measurements and his attitude (towards the Maharajah of Nepal) could result a bit of scepticism. It also clearly says he didn't think there was any reason for doubt. As his attitude was discussed already, I will focus on the (validity of the) measurements in this paragraph. I'll do it in a way that enables for a debate. Not that I'm interested, but I can imagine that some of you could have a different opinion.  


f1 - The effect of hunting pressure on size 

I propose to start with the Cooch Behar tables posted before. The totals of the first of the 3 tables posted (details of tigers shot between 1877 and 1893) are significantly higher than the totals of the other 2 (which have details of tigers shot between 1893 and 1908). The most logical explanation for the differences found is hunting pressure. When a region is shot over for 3-4 decades, it will have an effect. We were not disappointed and my guess is it wouldn't have been different in other parts of India. Well before 1900, experienced hunters already warned for the effect of overhunting in some parts of India. Compared to the period between 1800 and 1860, it showed in both lower averages and smaller large tigers. According to those interested in statistics, and their samples were not small, the differences were quite significant.

We now turn to northern India and Nepal. Although both regions, in those days, were similar to a degree, the conditions were quite different. Northern India was densely populated and forests had been affected by exploitation. It also was a very popular region to hunt. One of the reasons was tigers were large. Larger than in the Central Provinces, Hewett wrote (pp. 72). Hunting pressure in northern India was quite severe. The reason they kept shooting large tigers was Nepal tigers going south. The districts close to Nepal often produced the largest tigers.

All this to say that Nepal tigers were, and always had been, large. If we add that Nepal in those days was not as densely populated as northern India and that the Terai forests were not exploited and quite extended in that period, we can conclude that the conditions were favourable for wild animals. Last but not least, hunting was severely restricted. In order to hunt, you needed a special permit from the Maharajah of Nepal. Not many got one and the result was pristine forests. Did it show in the size of tigers? According to Hewett, the answer was affirmative:

" ... Eardley-Wilmot had a very decided opinion that the change from bows and arrows and firelocks to cordite rifles, ..., had resulted in a great deterioration in the size of tigers. Time is no longer given to them, as in the past, to develop to the full extent possible. There has been considerable discussion about this suggestion, and it seems very possible. I hoped once to get some definite evidence on the point when the Maharaja Sir Chandra Shamsher Jung very kindly allowed me to make an expedition to the Sarju Valley in Nepal, which had been a favourite hunting ground of Jung Bahadur. As described elsewhere, this expedition was a fiasco owing to an outbreak of cholera in the valley.

Sir Harcourt Butler visited it in 1918. His party got a splendid bag of eight tigers and six tigresses in a fortnight. Of the eight tigers, one measured 10 feet 5 inches, one ten feet 3 inches, one ten feet 2 and a half inches, and two ten feet 1 inch, and the average of the eight was just over 10 feet. Among the tigresses one measured 9 feet 5 inches, one 9 feet 3 and a half inches, and one 9 feet 1 inch. The average of the six was just under 9 feet. The fact that the average size of the animals got in this district, where they had not been seriously molested for a length of time, was substantially larger than that of those obtainable elsewhere seems to give considerable support to the contention of people who say that there has been in most places some deterioration in the size of tigers ... " ('Jungle trails in northern India, pp. 70-71).

To get to a summary. There is no question that hunting pressure had an effect on the average size of tigers in India. In Hewett's day, male tigers in northern India averaged 9.9 'over curves'. His longest was 10 feet 5 and a half inches. For Nepal, I expected an average of 9.11 - 10.0 for males ('over curves') and 11.0 or just under for the longest. Again, I was not disappointed. Nothing out of the ordinary then? No.

We could also turn it round. Only very few tigers have been hunted in India since 1970. Quite many now live in protected reserves and many of these are well-stocked. Did 4 decades of good conditions result in higher averages and more extra-large tigers? The first question can't be answered for lack of data, but there is no question that quite many of those captured were large animals. 

   
f2 - They didn't know how to measure tigers in Nepal

During an exchange on (the validity of) the measurements in the book of Smythies, WaveRiders, as you remember, proposed to take them with a bit of salt, if not dismiss them right away. One reason is Smythies hadn't been there when they were measured. Although he is right, this doesn't mean that the measurements were unreliable. What he is really saying, is that the measurements are unreliable because there was no supervision (of the British). This means they (the Nepalese), in his opinion, apparently didn't know how to measure a tiger.  

What to say? One is I do not agree with the implicit insult of the Nepalese, as that is what it really comes down to. As far as I know, there's, measurementwise, no reason to declare them incompetent just because they were Nepalese.

Two is Nepal and northern India were close neighbours. It is very likely there was quite a bit of interaction between those interested in tiger hunting in those days. The Maharajah of Nepal was experienced and I do not doubt he would have appreciated discussions with others about tigers. As most hunters were British interested in records in particular, chances are he would have adopted the method used to measure tigers in northern India. In order to prevent disqualifications like those discussed in this paragraph, chances are he, if anything, would have insisted on a correct use of the method adopted. More so than others, for the simple reason he wanted to be taken seriously.

The team responsable for measurements was responsible for all measurements taken in the years discussed in the book. This means that they were always taken in the same way by a team headed by someone who, according to Smythies, took his job very seriously. More than once, Smythies underlined that the measurements were reliable. What more can you do to be taken seriously? The answer is you can never do enough when you're guilty of impressive measurements. 

How did the measurements in Nepal compare to those taken in Cooch Behar? I don't know. I do know that the distance between northern India and Cooch Behar is considerable, whereas the distance between northern India and Nepal is limited. I also know that British hunters were allowed to hunt in Nepal at times and that there was contact between them and the Maharajah. In those days, distance was important. It definitely affected the frequency of social interaction. What I'm saying is that it's likely that the Maharajah of Nepal adopted the system used in northern India in order to facilitate discussions about the size of tigers. For this reason, it's also more than likely that the method adopted was applied in the same way as in northern India.

Hewett (pp. 68) wrote that the difference between both methods ('over curves' and 'between pegs') in northern India was 2-5 inches. When he compared records of large animals, however, he limited the difference to 2-3 inches (pp. 70) and when he discussed the measurements taken in Nepal in 1918 by Sir Harcourt Butler, he didn't say he didn't take them seriously.

We also know that the average difference in males in Cooch Behar was 5,45 inches (range 5 - 6,5) in averaged-sized animals. If I was forced to get to an opinion on Cooch Behar and Nepal, I would say the Nepal measurements most probably compare to those taken in northern India.  


f3 - Prejudice

Many Africans think that every person (in Africa) is born with an animal lying next to him. I agree, but would include Europe. The interest in tigers was there right from the start. I don't mind you using the word preference, as long as you remember that my interest in lions is about as strong.  

As you can only focus on one, I opted for the one I saw lying close to me when I was very young. I read books about tigers from the day I was able to read and had the good luck to meet people who had lived in a former colony of the Dutch when I was young. They often talked about their experiences in Indonesia. At high school and university, I continued reading. After I graduated, I measured almost 400 skulls in private collections and museums. I was asked to determine skulls at regular intervals and also measured and weighed captive big cats. In between, I interviewed trainers and talked to unknown old boys who heard about me and encouraged me to continue the good work. I did. This to say that I was there right from the start and never really let go of it.

From day one, I made notes and recorded measurements. This means I only had to go over them when I, a few months ago, decided to do a few tables. In spite of the fact I was prepared, it took me the best part of two months. Although I really gave it my best shot, mistakes could not be avoided. The reason is humans and mistakes are just too close. I accepted it a long time ago. 

When I got a computer from a friend telling me we had entered a new era, I used it to find more. I also visited a few forums, but never joined. The reason was them 'debates' and all the rest of it. When I had, informationwise, reached the end of the line, I decided to join one. My aim was exchange of information and it has to be said that I was not disappointed. One day, the forum was destroyed. Not by someone involved in these debates, I think. My guess is professional envy was the driving factor.

To return to the tables I posted. Those who read them no doubt saw that a lot of energy was invested in liner notes, explanations, comments and conclusions. The main reason is I want to offer those interested the opportunity to answers the questions they have themselves. Another is the additional information should discourage those interested in something else. Also important? You bet.

If you're interested in debates, I would advice to read a few. Debates on size usually are the most serious, especially when both lions and tigers are involved. Many, if not all, result in animosity, a bad climate, and, not seldom, total destruction sooner or later. I definitely like heated debates in order to get to the core of things, but it is a fact that arguments usually quickly drown in an ocean of opinions, insults and all the rest of it. Many posters are prepared to go to the limits to 'protect' their favourite and it has to be said that lion posters in particular often were involved.

My guess is they could have a few doubts as to the outcome of a fight (as it often comes down to that) and, for this reason, decided for a premature end. At all costs. Not needed, I think. A male lion is more than capable enough to take care of his own anywhere, thank you very much. Compared to Indian tigers, he might lack a few inches and pounds here and there and he also doesn't visit the gym as often as he should, but he compares very nicely in most departments. In the past centuries, they were pitted against each other every now and then. Many of those present no doubt were involved in betting. If one of the two would have been consistently more able than the other, not one would have been prepared to bet. As simple as that. In similar-sized animals of similar age, you just never know. This is why the habit continued for so long.   

Although tigers in some regions are a bit longer and heavier (averages, and not counting Ngorogoro and Kaziranga for lack of data), the largest individuals of both species seem to be very close in head and body length and weight. Tigers could be more muscular in the limbs and a bit faster, but the advantages of lions definitely compare. Same for the mental department. It would be a close call.

To return to the 'debates'. I can hear you say that those involved in heated debates about (the size of) lions and tigers wouldn't compare to biologists in most departments. You are no doubt right, but the question is if it is visible at the level of serious interaction (articles). Kitchener thought the Chitwan tigers were so heavy because they hadn't been adjusted. They were, but he apparently didn't take Sunquist very serious. As Kitchener is operating in the heavyweight division, his response was noted. It had an effect. More biologists started on measurements and weights of tigers in particular and the result was deductions and dismissals all over the place. The heavyweights measured by Ullas Karanth in Nagarahole all lost 30 kg. (68 lbs.) for unclear reasons and Goodrich added that Amur tigers had always been overrated. Others, like Yamaguchi, quickly followed and I also saw that the door to the room of contradictions was opened. The result is we still don't know much more than a century ago. 

After the 'debate' on adjustments, one would have expected biologists to opt for a reliable method to measure big cats in order to prevent problems once and for all. The most optimistic of us thought reliable scales would be obligatory by now. Most unfortunately, they were disappointed. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the book of Ullas Karanth in 2002. The book in which he wrote that the most reliable method to measure a big cat ('between pegs') had been dismissed as 'unreliable' (...) and that tigers were measured 'over curves' everywhere, I mean ('Tigers', 2001, pp. 47-48). The problem with scales also wasn't solved. This is why we don't know the exact weight of the two male tigers that bottomed a 600-pound scale in Nepal. Not that it would matter a lot, as I do not doubt that these giants would be dismissed for some reason as well. 

Anyhow. Based on what I read and saw, I'd say that preference and humans are close anywhere. Same for his friends prejudice and double standards.

Double standards? I'm afraid so. It can't be denied that today's biologists, although they use the same method to measure a tiger as a century ago and still didn't produce a decent sample, are deeply involved in dismissals of historic records. It also is a fact that mantras based on a few exceptions are used to get the intended outcome (dismissals). And what is offered in return? Small samples of wild tigers measured in a way that can only produce unclear results; contradictions; unfounded statements on the size of tigers, exchanges on the validity of information on the size of today's tigers published in 'peer-reviewed' documents and, last but not least, mass deductions. Although I agree that those who published on the size of today's tigers not seldom left the door wide open, it is a bit disappointing. 

One often reads that today's biologists are not that interested in morphology because they are faced with the plight of animals walking the edge nearly everywhere in Asia. I definitely agree and will say again that I, to put it mildly, respect the attempt to get to more knowledge on the ecology of wild tigers. Although I wrote the effect of their work was limited a few years ago, I now think it had an effect. There was a Tiger Meeting, measures were taken, promises were made and, most important, tiger numbers are up in quite many regions. A huge success that should result in more recognition, more airplay and, especially, more funds. There's no question that those mentioned in this post are responsible and deserve a lot more credit than they get. 

One last remark on morphology. It could be that the dubious quality of those who contributed is a result of a lack of interest. There is, however, also no question that the decision to use an unreliable method to measure tigers on one hand and dismiss old records of tigers measured in this way on the other resulted in a lack of a knowledge and a lot of confusion. There's just no framework to get to comparisons and solid statements. As a result, the wheel is likely to be re-invented. Furthermore, biologists will struggle to get to a correct appreciation of the size of tigers. 

Although it now is accepted that difficult conditions and hunting pressure can result in a decline of size over time, one never reads anything about the opposite. In regions were they live in protected and well-stocked reserves for a considerable amount of time, tigers can get to their potential at times. In India, this means that some males in their prime reach 10.0 - 10.4 in total length in a straight line and 550-625 lbs. or even a bit more. It is important that you know this when you capture tigers. If you base your actions on 'reasonable' records of sceptical observers only, chances are you are not prepared for an animal well over average. 

The thing to remember is that tigers show a lot of individual variation and respond to conditions. This can result in a loss of size in regions where they face habitat destruction and not enough wild ungulates, but it also means they can get to their potential in good conditions. Amur tigers still face illegal logging, competition (eastern Russia has over 60 000 hunters) and empty forests. Males of 450 pounds and over, for that reason, are few and far between. But things might change in the near future. The first sign is more tigers. When conditions keep improving in Russia, a few extra-large individuals can be expected and it is likely that some of these will be able to free themselves when they are captured.                             

To conclude.

The method used to measure tigers is unreliable and will result in confusion, as was proven again in the recent debate on the (interpretation of) recent records of tigers measured 'over curves' in Russia, Nepal and India. If you decide to measure tigers 'over curves', you can't dismiss historic records of tigers measured in the same way out of hand, as this would result in rumours about double standards. If you opt for dismissing them anyhow, the decision to do so shouldn't be based on mantras strongly related to hearsay and exceptions, as this compares to accepting them without any further thought. Decisions should be based on good information and sound reasoning, not something else.

It is a fact that there is no framework to assess records on the size of tigers. It also is a fact that not even an attempt was made to evaluate historic records of Indian tigers. Same for the advantages and disadvantages of the methods most used in British India and the way the method was applied in different regions. As a result of what seems to be a lack of knowledge, biologists at times have been baffled by the size of some tigers. There is at least one case in which a lack of preparation could have resulted in an accident. The darted Sauraha tiger in Chitwan drowned in a pool before they were able to locate him. Was he underestimated and 'underdarted' and, for this reason, able to disappear? In Russia, an adult male tiger was seriously wounded when he tried to free himself from a snare. Although it can't be proven that the injuries he inflicted on himself resulted in his downfall, it is a fact that he died some months later. One of the biologists involved in the attempt to capture the tiger wrote an article about the incident. It was published on a Russian forum. I read more stories on accidents.

Not accusing anyone here (I do not doubt that biologists would be the last to harm the animals they study and accidents can happen anywhere), but it seems best to expect a few extra-large and extra-capable male tigers every now and then. You got to be prepared when your trade is tigers.       

As to 'debates' on the size of big cats on forums. Based on what I saw, it has to be stated that some of those participating, in spite of their knowledge and their ability, were not always guided by the quest for facts. One of the factors that featured, in my opinion, could have been prejudice and everything connected to it. It was quite disappointing.

The internet is, and should be, a place for all to freely exchange information. This means heated discussions on the size of big cats will occur every now and then. When it happens, chances are some of the tables I posted could be discussed at some stage. In order to prevent misinterpretations, I decided for lengthy introductions, explanations and even more comments and liner notes. I know you don't like them one bit (neither do I), but it can't be prevented. Interaction, most unfortunately, often isn't about the exchange of information. In most cases, most energy has to be invested into something else.                  
          

g - Conclusions

I first want to offer my apologies for the endless repetitions and the extreme length of some paragraphs in most posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal. You now know why I decided they could not be avoided. 

As to the measurements in the book of Smythies. I think they are reliable. It's just an opinion, but it is a fact that time was invested to get there. My take is the Nepal measurements compare to those taken in northern India, and not Cooch Behar, for the reasons stated, but I could be wrong. This means we have to deduct 2-5 inches of the length 'over curves' in order to get to the length 'between pegs'. In some large and bulky males the difference could be a bit more outspoken (maybe 6 inches), but this wouldn't be true for all large males. I agree with Hewett, who stated it depends on the skill and experience of those measuring tigers. One reason is I tried it myself. Another is that one team was responsible for the measurements taken in Nepal.   

I promise that tables will feature in the next posts. I will also post a few stories and articles about Nepal tigers. Reply

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XIII


Nepal (females)


a - A.E. Smythies ('Big game shooting in Nepal', Calcutta, 1942)

After discussing Smythies and the measurements he provided at length, we can now move on to the table for females. It has individual entries in chronological order. The 29 tigresses were shot between 07-01-1933 and 24-02-1939 in different regions in southern Nepal.

In total length 'over curves', they ranged between 7.9 (236,22 cm.) and 9.8 (294,65 cm.). The average for all 29 was 266,22 cm. As 2 of these were suspect (tigresses 01 and 09), I decided for a second average. Without them, the average of 27 was 268,16 cm.

Remember the book had no details about the 2 tigresses omitted. The decision to leave them out, however, is not completely arbitrary. In my post on the visit of the Maharajah of Bikanir to Nepal, 3 large female cubs, all at least 8 feet in total length 'over curves', were still with their mother when they were shot in 1920.   

The main difference with the other regions discussed in previous posts (northeastern India and northern India) is in range: Nepal, where tigers in most districts were not molested for a considerable period of time, produced both very short and very long tigresses. Although I'm not sure (for lack of details), I assume most were adult. The two longest tigresses (no. 20 and 28) both had cubs when they were shot, but one of the shortest (tigress 17, who taped 8.0 in total length 'over curves') also had 3 cubs.

The differences between the districts are remarkable. In Naya Muluk in the extreme west of Nepal, 6 tigresses averaged 261,62 cm. in total length 'over curves', whereas the 10 shot in Chitawan averaged 270,89 cm. In Morang, in the extreme southeast, 4 tigresses averaged no less than 283,85 cm. in total length. The most like explanation for the differences, apart from sample size, could be pressure. In regions in which they were hunted at times, they were considerably shorter than in Chitawan and Morang.

Table XIV:
        

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - Conclusions

1 - Using sample size and the amount of individual variation as indicators, we can say that the Nepal sample is quite reliable. In sample size, it more or less compares to northeastern and northern india.

2 - Although some females were well over 9 feet in total length 'over curves', Nepal tigresses, in this respect, compare to tigresses shot in northeastern and northern india. The most likely reason seems to be the significant amount of individual variation.  

3 - In total length, there are significant differences between regions. Tigresses shot in unmolested districts were considerably longer than those shot in regions where they were hunted.  

4 - Based on table I posted before, one could say that tigresses shot in northeastern India could have been a bit more robust (unclear). This conclusion, as a result of a lack of data, is not reliable. 

5 - Tigresses 20 and 28, at 9.8 (294,64 cm.) 'over curves', are the longest that I know of. If we use the only tigress measured both 'over curves' and 'between pegs' as an indicator (tigress 24 in table I), both Nepal tigresses could have been about 282,00 cm. in total length if they would have been measured 'between pegs'. This means they compared to an average male tiger shot in northeastern India. 

6 - Tigress 10 was the only shot from a machan. All others were shot from elephants.

7 - Tigresses 21 and 29 were shot in a 'ring' that also had Himalayan black bears. When the circle was tightened and both species met, they fought. The fights were witnessed and described in the first posts. Reply

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XIV


Nepal (males)


a - A.E. Smythies ('Big game shooting in Nepal', Calcutta, 1942)

The remarks on Nepal tigresses in the previous post can be repeated for Nepal male tigers: as everything we need to know was discussed before, we can move to the tables right away.

There are 2 tables. This post has the first of them.

All male tigers shot between 14-01-1933 and 16-02-1939 are in tables XV (01-27) and XVI (28-52). From left to right: No. - Page - Date - Location - Length (total length measured 'over curves ' in feet and inches) - Cm. (total length 'over curves' in cm.) - Age - Remarks - Camp.

 
Table XV:

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - Remarks on table XV

1 - Tiger 03, at 10.9 'over curves', was the largest the Maharajah of Nepal ever shot. He wasn't the only one of 10.9, but, at 705 lbs. or 319,79 kg, he was the biggest. How was he weighed? No details known. Was he baited? It seems best to just quote the part written about this tiger:

" ... No less than nine kills had been reported from different places around camp, a plethora on a marching day when all the elephants were employed in moving camp. General Kaiser organised a ring only 500 yards away from camp, on the further side of the Rapti, and successfully enclosed a tiger. This proved to be yet another enormous fighting tiger, who on being wounded 'sprang with one terrible bound towards the howdah, but his progress was stopped in mid-air by a shot from the Maharajah'. A superb and realistic painting of this scene hangs to-day in the great Durbar Hall in Kathmandu, which is reproduced in plate 23 in this book. This was the largest tiger His Highness has ever shot, 10 feet 9 inches, and probably one of the half dozen largest that ever have been shot since correct measurements started ... " (pp. 88).

So was the tiger baited? Yes. All, or nearly all, tigers shot by the Maharajah of Nepal and his guests were baited. For more information, read the first posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal. Was the tiger fully gorged? Not likely. A gorged tiger retreats after he is saturated. He no doubt will demonstrate when surrounded by elephants, but based on everything I read on gorged tigers I think it is very unlikely the tiger would have been capable of anything. This giant, however, " ... sprang with one terrible bound towards the howdah, but his progress was stopped in mid-air ... ". Not your typical gorged tiger.  

Some time ago, I posted on a tiger of similar length and weight shot in Central India in the 19th century. This tiger, a confirmed cattle-lifter, was hunted by a forest officer not long after a meal. In the heat of the day, he was hardly capable of walking, let alone launch an attack. He was an easy shot. The forest officer estimated him at over 700 pounds and described him as a 'perfect mountain of fat'.

How much can a large male tiger described as 'gorged' eat? Corbett was quite impressed by the capability of some of the tigers he shot, but he didn't provide details. The Maharajah of Cooch Behar did. His 'gorged' male tigers were 59 lbs. heavier than an average male. The 7 'gorged' males of which he provided details compared in all respects to an average male. Maybe a very big tiger can get to 77 lbs. in one sitting, as one tried, but that tiger most certainly wouldn't be able to jump at an elephant.

What would the weight of the 705 lbs. Nepal tiger have been when he would have been empty? My take is to deduct about 45 lbs. This is about the average amount of meat a male tiger would digest in one sitting in most cases. I really wonder if he would have been capable of the feat described by Smythies with 45 lbs. of meat in his stomach, but it could be possible. Based on that assumption, he could have been about 660 lbs. empty. In order to exclude gossip, rumours and dismissals, I propose 635-660 lbs. empty.

Any chance of backing this conclusion? Reliable information provided by a biologist? Yes. Two Nepal male tigers bottomed a 600-pound scale a few decades ago. I have no details about the one weighed by Dinerstein, but the Sauraha male was 10.2 'over curves' when he had been radio-collared and was darted again. Quite a bit shorter than the 10.9 giant shot in 1933. We have to add that the Sauraha tiger had a long tail.

But 660 surely is way out of reach for any wild male tiger, no matter how large? I agree. The Cooch Behar sample says that even 500 empty is real big, let alone 550 or well over that mark. On the other hand. Tigers over 600 lbs. have been recorded by biologists twice and there's no question that some exceeded 700 in the recent past in central, southwestern and northern India. I have more than one example I consider reliable. All of these heavyweights, of course, were gorged.

The 705-lbs. Nepal tiger was shot in a region where tigers were not often molested in a time there were 10 tigers for every one today. He could have been about 10.3 - 10.5 in a straight line and 650 lbs. empty.    

2 - Tiger 09 was something to behold: " ... The next day ..., the Maharajah shot a tiger, measuring 9 feet 4 inches, which was almost white with black stripes and he was delighted to get this rare specimen ... " (pp. 92).

3 - Tigers 12 and 13 were shot in the same ring. The tigress in the ring " ... charged an elephant, ... , and, breaking the circle, made good her escape ... " (pp. 58). The 2 males were shot. In total length, they were well below average. Young adults competing for a female or immature brothers not yet on their own?

4 - Tiger 15 was filmed: " ... Three guests accompanied the Maharajah on the shoot to-day - Sir Frederick O'Connor, Mr. Verney and Mr. Musselwhite the film operator. They had a day to remember! A single tiger was first found, a fighting beast who provided some fine film before he was finnaly killed. He measured 9 feet 9 inches ... " (pp. 60).

5 - Tigers 16 and 17 were shot in a ring that had 5 tigers (2 females, 2 males and a large cub). All of them were shot very close to each other. Most unusual. My guess is the males were not adults, but immatures still with their mother.

6 - Tiger 21 was on his own when he was shot. It took 2 hours to beat him out of the dense undergrowth and " ... an exciting film was taken of the episode ... " (pp. 125). Judging from his total length, he most probably was immature.

7 - Tiger 27, also shot near the Rapti river, was described as " ... the second biggest tiger ... ever shot, an enormous heavy brute measuring 10 feet 9 inches ... " (pp. 133).   

8 - The range in size, like in tigresses, is remarkable. It has to be noted, however, that at least 7 males (tigers 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 25 and 26) were suspect for good reasons. They were included in the table, but I have serious doubts as to their age and status. The reason is that adult male tigers, apart from a few exceptions, avoid other adult males. Spacing is an important mechanism in adults.

The rings, as was discussed before, were not wider than about 1 mile or a little over, meaning the male tigers had to be very close to each other well before the ring was closed. Most unusual. The only reasonable explanation is that the tigers shot most probably were related. Another reason to assume they were immature was that all of them were well below par in total length.

9 - This is plate 22 with the enormous 705 lbs. Chitawan tiger discussed in b1. It most probably is based on a photograph. I don't see a gorged tiger, but I admit he is laying on his belly:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XV


Nepal (males - b)


a - A.E. Smythies ('Big game shooting in Nepal', Calcutta, 1942)

This post has the second table on male tigers shot in Nepal between 14-01-1933 and 16-02-1939. Not less than 17 of the 25 tigers in table XVI taped 10 feet or over and the result is the totals are quite a bit higher than in the first table. I'm not sure about the reason, but my guess is the second table only has adult males, whereas the first had at least 7 of which I have serious doubts (see the previous post on Nepal male tigers).

TABLE XVI:

*This image is copyright of its original author

b - Remarks

1 - Tiger 36 was a " ... very big tiger ... " (pp. 78). This male, the record for the Naya Muluk jungles, was shot by Field-Marshall Mannerheim (Finnish Army). The tiger had eaten no less than 8 'padahs' and had 8 toes (...). Mannerheim " ... was often unable to spot the glimpses of the slinking form, and several shots missed the mark. At last a shot went home, but it took three more to finish him off ... " (pp. 78). I'll post the story on Mannerheim and the 8-toed tiger in a few days.

2 - Table XVI has 5 regional averages. The average for Chitawan (307,65 cm. 'over curves') is quite reliable (n=23). Tigers 16 and 17 were omitted for the reasons discussed before. Have a good look, as you will not find anything that even comes close. It definitely is an all-time record. This then has to be the result of a lack of hunting pressure. Nepal tigers, and those in Chitawan and Morang in particular, apart from a few exceptions, were not hunted in the days of the Maharajahs. If we add good conditions and a sizeable population, the result is 10.1 'over curves' for males in the period 1933-1939. Very similar to the 8 males shot by Harcourt-Butler's party in 1918, who averaged just over 10 feet  ('Jungle trails in northern India', J. Hewett, 1938 - pp. 71 in the 2008 reprint).

Many moons later, hunters returned to Chitawan. This time, however, they had a degree in biology, darts and good intentions. The averages they found almost compared to the averages found in the days of the Maharajahs. Their peers, although they seem to be different from those involved in debates on lions, tigers, bears and measurements on 'forums', still didn't get over it. The method of measurement was questioned, weights were adjusted and again, the samples were too small and they also saw a pregnant tigress. My guess is they will never ever stop going for them measurements until Nepal tigers are ranked directly after Gir lions. Talkin' biologists here.

Although they have some good points, the criticism can't erase the facts. After decades of bloodshed, low numbers (there are just over 200 tigers left in Nepal), poverty, habitat destruction, prey depletion and bad publicity, at least one of the few adult Nepal male tigers left still was very close to 10 feet in total length 'between pegs'. He and another male still bottomed a 600-pound scale. I saw others just south of the Himalayas who could have been even larger. This to underline that tigers in that region were and still are large animals.           

3 - Table XVI is concluded with an average for all males. The average (301,67 cm. 'over curves' in total length) is unsurpassed. If we add that at least 7 of them were suspect (if not immature), it is baffling. I made a second average without tigers 16,17 and 21 and got to 303,76 cm. If I would have added the other 4, the average of 45 would have been over 10 feet in total length 'over curves' (...). There's no question that Nepal male tigers were (and probably still are) the longest of all by a margin.

4 - Tiger 52 didn't take it lying down: " ... The beater elephants were pursued by the tiger, and he would not let them go near him. He growled and thundered and all the beater elephants ran away in panic to the outer ring. As the tiger would not come within sight of the howdah elephants, His Highness with Commanding General Bahadur advanced into the ring, and attacked him in his lair. One bullit struck him, and he fled into heavy grass cover in the centre, where His Highness killed him with two more bullets. This tiger had a big round head and was of a dreadful appearance ... " (pp. 115 - a direct quote from the diary).

5 - Any pictures of these extra-large males? Table XVI has 3 tigers of 10.8 in total length 'over curves', all shot in Chitawan. The third of the 4 photographs below has one of them, but I'm not sure about 2 of the others. My guess is the males in the first 2 photographs also taped 10.8. The last tiger, for comparison, is the 10.2 Sauraha male, who also made his home in Chitawan. He's the one who bottomed a 600-pound scale:

*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

c - Conclusions

1 - The Nepal sample is reliable. The average total length of 52 male tigers was 301,67 cm. 'over curves'. Without 3 of the 7 immatures, the average is 303,76 cm. If all immature males would have been removed, the average of the remaining 45 would have been over 10 feet.

2 - Although the differences between the 5 regions are limited, central and southeastern Nepal produced the longest tigers. The Chitawan sample (n=23) is quite reliable.

3 - The only tiger weighed was tiger 03 (table XV). Although baited, he tiger vigorously attacked a howdah elephant. He was shot in mid-air by the Maharajah. At 10.9 and 705 pounds, he was both long and heavy. Based on what I read, I concluded he could have been 10.4 - 10.5 'between pegs' in total length and 635-660 pounds empty. My guess is he would have been closer to 660, as he was able to attack a howdah elephant. Furthermore, he didn't seem to be gorged on the plate posted in the previous post.

4 - I have collected measurements and weights of big cats for a long time. Although tigers of 10 feet and over (total length measured 'over curves') have been shot in most regions in southern Asia, there is, in my opinion, no question that the averages of male Nepal tigers are unsurpassed. Northern India is close, but the difference with other regions is clear and pronounced. 

The question on weight is more difficult to answer. The reason is a lack of data. The best sample is from Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam. The 53 males weighed averaged 461,34 lbs. and just over 295,00 cm. in total length measured 'over curves' (about 281,00 cm. 'between pegs'). The males weighed in northern India lacked a bit, but they were shorter than the Cooch Behar tigers who were weighed. If those who were not weighed would have been included (they averaged over 300,00 cm. in total length), the average for northern India would have been well over 461 lbs., whereas the average for Cooch Behar (those not weighed were a bit shorter than those weighed) would have been closer to 450-455 lbs. (empty).

Only very few Nepal tigers were weighed. Those that were ranged between 368-705 lbs. If we remove the young male and the giant shot by the Maharajah, the average weight could have been somewhere between 475-500 lbs. This, at least, was the outcome of the attempts I did. All of these were based on total length, because of the strong correlation between length and weight in tigers (in India). The Chitawan males weighed by the Sunquists half a century later averaged 235 kg. (520 lbs.) unadjusted and 221 kg. (488 lbs.) adjusted. 

5 - I would like to make a case for unadjusted weights. The reason is scales are precise, whereas adjustments always are a are result of negociations and coincidence. If Kitchener and Yamaguchi happen to be in town when they are discussing adjustments, it will have a serious effect. 

Another reason to use unadjusted weights is adjustment is a human invention, whereas real life has many faces. Wild big cats range in weight all the time. What you find depends on fitness, age and circumstances, not equations, ingredients and interpretations. As an adult, the Sauraha tiger bottomed a 500-pound scale when he was first darted. Some time later, he bottomed a 600-pound scale. The famous bear-hunter 'Dale' in Russia was 424 lbs. in the WCS-table, but that weight was the result of at least 3 attempts. He ranged between 445 in good shape and 375 after a severe cough. Although he lost 3 of his 4 canines, he recovered and almost got to his old weight. But I wonder if he was still involved in bears after losing most his his canines.  

As to adjustments. The method used presently (deduct 30 kg. of 67 lbs. in males unseen or face the consequences) is a result of assumptions, negociations and all the rest of it. Unadjusted weights are real, precise and, therefore, reliable. My proposal would be to use unadjusted weights for documents and leave the adjustment to others. I would, however, advice to add a description and a picture of every individual darted, weighed and measured in the Appendix.

And, while we're at it, I recommend a course on how to measure a big cat for those interested in working with big cats. Obligatory and straight lines only. If they fail, I propose to enter their own length 'loosely measured over curves' in their passports and send them to 15 different countries where you serve a minimum of 2 months for cheating with length. This should give 'm the opportunity to study the debates on the two most used methods in detail and, more important, experience the effects of using the wrong method. 


d - The largest tigers

Nepal tigers were, and still are, large animals. We also know they lived in near-pristine conditions just before the last war. Finally, we know that the Maharajah and those involved in tiger hunting knew all there was to know about tigers in general and extra-large specimens in particular. For this reason, I expected to find at least one male of about 11 feet 'over curves' in the book of Smythies. Not so. 

But how about the special tapes and very important persons bagging very important tigers in those days? I think you would have to ask Ullas Karanth, Kitchener and Yamaguchi about the details. They apparently have plenty.

I read a few books written by those who hunted extra-large males only. I also talked to a few hunters. At least one of them hunted in India and he really knew about the habits of tigers. My guess was he might have been involved in extra-large tigers. 

What I read and heard suggests that at least some of these extra-large tigers were very aware and elusive animals, always on the move and apparently able to foresee the moves of the one after them. Same, by the way, for some old and very large male lions and brown bears hunted by specialists.

Experienced man-eaters also were described as wary and elusive animals, but they always left traces (the remains of those they killed) and, for this reason, quite many were shot. If you had the time to stay on their tail, you would get your chance, that is. Maybe one only, but that still beats zilch. Not so for those after tigers who avoided humans.

Was there such a 'ghost-tiger' of extraordinary size in Nepal? A tiger never seen, but sensed? Maybe there was. In December 1935, in Bagari Camp, the 'rings' had no tigers. A result of incompetence, or something else? 

" ... Some nilgai ... were seen, but these of course, owing to their name, cannot be shot in a Hindu country! 'The kills obtained continued to fail to locate the tigers, and all sorts of theories were put forward to account for the non-success. Some attributed the absence of tiger in a properly formed circle to the errors of the shikaris in 'cutting the circle'. Others blamed the shikaris for tying baits at places near which there was no drinking water. A few superstitious people grounded their arguments upon folk-lore, and claimed that the tiger was a 'Garau' tiger, meaning a ghost tiger, into which some wizard converted himself, so that during the kill he was a tiger but during the hunt he was a man again'.

In this forest there is undoubtedly a very old, very enormous, and very cunning tiger, which goes by the local name of 'Ajingare Bagh', who, when he kills a padah, makes a meal of it and 'betakes himself away to a distance of 14 or 15 miles from the place, and thus succeeds in baffling the shikaris'. His Highness still hopes one day to get him, and that he will be 11 feet ... " (pp. 121). 

I saw many captive big cats. Some of these were extra-large. What I saw strongly suggests they knew they were in a different league. You can communicate with them, but work is out of the question. They have their own agenda and want to be left alone. They often are killers, but do not compare to many of the derailed butchers intent on showing off. They kill with a purpose. Read Beatty, who discussed a few extra-large lions. They too didn't like crowds and were never questioned by their peers. Not done.

Those who hunted extra-large tigers were told about a few basics in no uncertain way when they least expected it. One of them, after a year of hunting him and zero contact, felt a bit uneasy when he had been lying on his belly waiting for a deer for the pot. When he turned round, he saw the one he was after. The tiger had watched him from a leap's distance, yet hadn't killed him. When eyes met, a message was conveyed. When hunter and hunted were similar, the game continued. And it wasn't about killing your opponent, I think. When they were not similar, the one with the gun not seldom was taken out. Not directly and not by surprise, but later and in another way. These remarks are based on a few stories I read. Amur tigers. But the one who hunted tigers in India confirmed.   

Some of these extra-large big cats are interested in mating, but not always and not when females are in heat. When you try to mate them, they might kill her. Many big cats (and bears), after centuries of prosecution, have adapted to humans in that they don't hunt and kill them as often as one would expect. These extra-large animals seem to be different. They won't hunt you (less so than others in fact), but they could have kept something that was there before they were hunted. In captivity, big cats often compare to adult cubs. A wild big cat, however, is an experienced and well-trained observator. And a terminator. Not a walking brain, but a creature driven by instinct. Instinct in its most true nature, meaning it isn't used to kill. Not only, to be more accurate. You can see this type in all species, but tigers seem to produce them more often. The reasons are size, way of life and specialisation. If you live on your own most of the time, you apparently can reach a different dimension at times. I might have seen it a few times, but wouldn't be able to inform you on it. It's difficult to explain.      

Anything to back this up in wild animals? Not really. Stevenson-Hamilton saw glimpses of what " ... appeared ... to be much the largest lion ... " he had ever seen, but, in spite of the best trackers and intimate knowledge of the country, never was able to contact this giant ('Wildlife in South Africa', J. Stevenson-Hamilton, Panther edition, 1957, pp. 208). The locals said he was as big and black as a buffalo and had named him 'Tshokwane'. His spoor measured 8 inches in diameter. This ghost lion outwitted Stevenson-Hamilton " ... first, last, and all the time ... ":

" ... He was usually accompanied by some full-grown, but younger lion, and when his companion was killed, as happened several times, he always seemed able to collect another almost immediately. No doubt his great sagacity and experience were invaluable in hunting, and there was a fair division of labour; 'Tshokwane' doing the planning ..., while the younger undertook the more strenuous part of the actual killing.

His selection of day lairs was always characterized by foresight. He never chose a place where surprise would be easy, and his scout was usually stationed at an outpost. His favourite spot was at the top of a high flat-topped hill, covered with large boulders and loose stones, but with rather steep sides, from which a perfect view could be got all over the surrounding country and over which it was impossible to make a quiet approach ... " (pp. 208).

Stevenson-Hamilton wasn't sorry he never got to 'Tshokwane': " ... The natives, of course, said that as he was a 'tagati' I would never get him, and this made me, ..., all the more keen to do so; but had I succeeded, I think I would have been rather sorry on the whole, for so much cleverness and reasoning power deserved the success it actually achieved ... " (pp. 211).  

I read similar accounts of hunters who spent their best years going after tigers who compared to the great ghost lion in South Africa or the giant Nepal tiger shot by the Maharajah in 1933. 

Some, like Col. Powell, succeeded, whereas others didn't. They had seen the tiger they were after, but didn't pull the trigger. Neither did the tiger when he had the chance. Maybe hunting isn't about bagging the one you are after. Maybe real hunters want to connect to something that is no longer here. The moment you shoot, it will be lost forever. 

Only those in the know understand that this should not happen. They also know that a true experience is not that different from an illusion. Maybe you need to have explored the natural world with everything you have to know that life could be about something else. Something difficult to explain at the best of times. It really is a pity that those who were there never wrote about their experiences. But they might have had good reasons. I mean, who would believe you? You can show a trophy, but you can never show that what is connected to it. Besides, words are words. The essence of many things just can't be described. It has to be felt. What is felt, however, is very personal. It never is universal. Only those who have experience will understand what you mean. For this reason, not many of them read or write books. Reply

[Pckts]

Amazing stuff yet again, Nepal produces the largest tigers I have seen thus far, these cats are a true sign of what the Tiger is capable of when no human pressure is put on them.

I also agree with un-adjusted weights

Lastly, I find it interesting in regards to old, large males being almost, "ghosts"

You can find examples of this in most apex predators...
Great White Shark divers say time and again that the largest sharks usually never come up to the surface of the cage, they are always at much lower depths outside of the occasional monster who makes an appearance only to not be seen for years afterwards.
Bro Bear posted about a bear who was an alleged monster and would avoid poachers snares and so forth,
Gustav the croc avoided capture for as long as they tried
and I think this holds true with some tigers...
You don't get to be an old king without learning some tricks and I truly think the greatest specimens are the ones we will never see until they decide its time to show themselves.

All and all, these write ups have been absolutely fascinating and I have enjoyed reading them.
Your hard work is appreciated Reply

[Richardrli]

Were any other tigers in Smythies book weighed? Seems strange that the only one weighed just so happened to be the very largest one. I'm certainly not insinuating anything, just curious. Reply

[Pckts]

"3 - The only tiger weighed was tiger 03 (table XV). Although baited, he tiger vigorously attacked a howdah elephant. He was shot in mid-air by the Maharajah. At 10.9 and 705 pounds, he was both long and heavy. Based on what I read, I concluded he could have been 10.4 - 10.5 'between pegs' in total length and 635-660 pounds empty. My guess is he would have been closer to 660, as he was able to attack a howdah elephant. Furthermore, he didn't seem to be gorged on the plate posted in the previous post."

I'd assume that the maharajah was so intrigued by the size of that tiger that he felt the need to weight it.
But that is purely a guess....
Usually the body length is a good gauge and you can use other tigers weighed to compare them to each other when looking at body length. But exceptions always exist (health, body type, etc)
 A 10'9'' Tiger over the curves is a huge cat though, much larger than the 600+lb sauraha male.
"Two Nepal male tigers bottomed a 600-pound scale a few decades ago. I have no details about the one weighed by Dinerstein, but the Sauraha male was 10.2 'over curves' when he had been radio-collared and was darted again. Quite a bit shorter than the 10.9 giant shot in 1933. We have to add that the Sauraha tiger had a long tail."

Just look at the Cooch Behar, Duars, Assam table... The longest cats are  around 311cm compared to 327cm for that cat and they are over 500lbs so the additional 5'' of length plus unknown factors such as height, chest and limb girth, etc. Show that the size mentioned certainly is obtainable. Reply

[peter]

(01-29-2016, 11:10 AM)Richardrli Wrote: Were any other tigers in Smythies book weighed? Seems strange that the only one weighed just so happened to be the very largest one. I'm certainly not insinuating anything, just curious.

Sorry for the late response. I was out.

PC's response just about covered it. My guess is they were just curious.

I don't know if the 705 lbs. giant was the only one weighed. It was the only weight mentioned in the book. Reply

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XVI


Nepal (males - c)


a - Tiger 36 in table XVI - Smythies

There's a bit more on tiger 36 in table XVI, both in the book of Smythies and in a short story posted by a relative of the Maharajah of Nepal. I'll start with Smythies. The part quoted below is from Chapter V ('The Maharaja in Naya Muluk', pp. 50-79):

" ... A few days later, Colonel Bailey (the British Minister) wrote again to the Maharaja saying another distinguished visitor had arrived, the famous Field-Marshal Mannerheim of Finland, who was also very anxious to see Nepalese tiger shooting. His Highness replied that he would of course be delighted and he hoped during the next few days the Field-Marshal would be able to shoot a good tiger. " The British Minister motored over and introduced the Field-Marshal to his Highness, who said that he felt great pleasure in making his acquaintance, to which the Marshall replied that he felt highly favoured to have this interview with 'the greatest head of the only independent HIndu kingdom', and that he had fought in the Great War as an ally with the Nepalese. He further added that by His Highness' favour, he was greatly looking forward to the pleasure of a fine tiger hunt " (the last part is a direct quote from the diary of the Maharajah of Nepal).

On February 6 (1937), a very big tiger was ringed by elephants and white cloth, and an invitation was sent to the British Minister to bring his party, which included Field-Marshal Mannerheim, the Earl of Aylesford, Mr. Lloyd Smith (an American millionaire) and several ladies. For an hour and a quarter the party enjoyed all the thrills of a tiger ring shoot, with the tiger appearing and disappearing in the heavy growth of gigantic grasses. Field-Marshal Mannerheim was often unable to spot the glimpes of the slinking form, and several shots missed the mark. At last a shot went home, but it required three more to finish him off. The diary notes - " This was an eight-toed tiger who had eaten eight padahs, and was killed with eight bullets. Four bullets had hit him, and he measured 10 feet 7 inches, being the record size for the Naya Muluk jungles. His Highness expressed his congratulations, and the Field-Marshal replied that he felt himself very highly favoured in killing such a magnificent and enormous tiger " ... " (pp. 78).

The second paragraph suggests that the big tiger had been seen and monitored some time before he was shot. It apparently took eight padahs (young male buffalos) to keep him in the part of the jungle that was later ringed (...). This to say that the tiger most probably had been baited for some time. Judging from the eight toes, it's likely the tiger had been wounded well before he was shot. Although Mannerheim, shooting from an elephant, had some trouble finding the target, he wasn't a rooky in tiger shooting. Not according to the story below.


b - Tiger 36 in table XVI - Subodh Rana

The story below was written by Subodh Rana and posted on January 28, 2009. Most unfortunately, I forgot on which forum it was posted. I assume it was AVA, but I'm not sure.

Anyhow. Subodh Rana, managing director of Marco Polo Travels when he wrote the story below in 2009, hosted many guests interested in Chitawan tigers. The difference with 1937 is only cameras were allowed in 2009. 

As for tiger 36 and Field-Marshal Mannerheim.

Subodh Rana wrote that Field-Marshal Mannerheim had been in Nepal before he was invited by the Maharajah in 1937. After he had bagged his first tiger, Mannerheim " ... made his way back to southern India and visited Madrad and Hyderabad ... " (second paragraph below).

Does the story below carry some weight? Yes.

Subodh Rana is the grandson of the Maharajah of Nepal and apparently had access to the archive of his grandfather:     

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

*This image is copyright of its original author

c - Tiger 36 in table XVI - summary

In order to prevent scrolling up and down all the time, I decided to repost the table in which tiger 36 featured first.

Table XVI (repost):

*This image is copyright of its original author

The 9 male tigers shot in the Naya Muluk jungles in December 1936 and January and February 1937 were impressive animals. Tiger 36, shot on February 6, 1937, not only was very long (at 10.7, he was only 2 inches shorter than the longest ever shot in Nepal), but also 'enormous'. The most likely reason is he had been lured to and kept in the part of the jungle later to be ringed.

In the weeks he stayed in the hotel the Maharajah had offered him, he got roomservice and no less than 8 padahs. They proved to be poisoned. The lesson is never to accept a room you didn't select yourself. If you ignore the message, chances are they will share your bed first and take your skin later.

Is the tiger with the Field-Marshal and the Maharajah (second scan) the 10.7 Naya Muluk tiger? My guess is no.

Is Marco Polo Travels still in business? I don't know. But chances are I will find out a bit more in the next days. When it is, I will visit it in the near future. For sure. Reply

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XVII


Nepal (males - d)


a - Overview of 66 male Nepal tigers shot and measured 1908-1939

In the previous posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal, I posted information on the length of 71 male tigers shot in Nepal:

- 6 shot by the Maharajah of Bikanir in 1920 (source: JBNHS, Vol. 27, 'A sporting diary', pp. 386-391);
- 5 shot by Sir John Hewett and his party 1908-1912 (source: 'Jungle trails in northern India', J. Hewett, Natraj Publishers reprint 2008, pp. 169-174);
- 8 shot by the party of Sir Harcourt Butler 1919 (source: 'Jungle trails of northern India', J. Hewett, Natraj Publishers reprint 2008, pp. 71, 174-175), and
- 52 shot by the Maharajah of Nepal and his guests (source: 'Big game shooting in Nepal', A.E. Smythies, 1942).

Of these 71, 5 were omitted. The reason is age in all cases. One of the 6 males shot by the party of the Maharajah of Bikanir was very old and much shorter than the others. One of the 5 males shot by Hewett's party, also quite a bit shorter than the others, most probably was immature. Same for 3 of the 52 males shot by the Maharajah of Nepal and his guests.

The 66 remaining male tigers, most probably, were adult when they were shot. Here's the table with the 66 male tigers shot in Nepal in the period 1908-1939 (from left to right: source - year of publication - year in which the tigers were shot - total length 'over curves' - weight and remarks):

Table XVII:

*This image is copyright of its original author

  
b - Remarks

1 - Sources

The first source is the article in the JBNHS. The article wasn't written by the Maharajah of Bikanir (who there when the tigers were shot and measured), but by those who had direct access to it. Secundary, but reliable. Method of measurement clear ('over curves'), but no details were offered on the way the method was applied. Secundary and moderately reliable.  

The second source is Hewett's book. The book is a prime source regarding the 5 tigers Hewett and his party shot. Hewett also offered details on how the method used to measure tigers ('over curves') was applied. Prime source and very reliable. 

As to the 8 male tigers shot by the party of Sir Harcourt Butler in 1919. The information on these tigers, as far as I know, is not based on a publication, but Hewett apparently had direct access to the source. There's no information on how the method used to measure the 8 tigers ('over curves') was applied, but Hewett thought the information was reliable. This is remarkable, as Hewett was quite sceptical of measurements (read his book). Secundary and moderately reliable. 

The third source is the book of Smythies ('Big game shooting in Nepal'). Smythies wasn't there when the tigers were shot and measured, but he had direct access to the source (the diary of the Maharajah of Nepal). Although there are no details on the method used to measure tigers ('over curves'), Smythies talked to the one who headed the team responsable for the measurements. All tigers were measured by one team. Smythies, more than once, underlined the measurements were reliable. This statement carries some weight, as Smythies had been a Forest Officer in India for most of his life. He also had hunted tigers and was familiar with the method used to measure tigers in northern India. Secundary, but reliable.                       

Although 2 of the 3 sources are secundary and although crucial information on how the method used to measure tigers was applied is missing, the measurements, in my opinion, can be considered as quite reliable. Not quite what we would have wanted, but this is about as good as it gets. And way too good to dismiss out of hand.

2 - Sample

The sample in the book of Smythies (n=23) is good enough, but the other samples are a bit wanting. In my opinion, the right order would be Smythies - Hewett a - JBNHS - Hewett b. The only region exceeding the threshold would be Chitawan.

It is, however, interesting that the sample of Sir Harcourt Butler (described as Hewett b above and samplewise considered as insufficient), averagewise, nicely compares to that in the book of Smythies. Why interesting?

Well, the tigers shot by party of Sir Harcourt Butler were shot in Chitawan as well. They averaged 306,06 cm. 'over curves' in total length (n=8) in 1919, whereas those shot by the Maharajah of Nepal and his guests, shot in the period 1933-1939, averaged 307,65 cm. 'over curves' in total length (n=23). How close can you get?

3 - Average total length 

In the period 1908-1939, the average total length 'over curves' of 66 males shot in different parts of Nepal was 303,04 cm. or just over 9.11 (range 9.0 - 10.9). In central parts of Nepal (Chitawan), the average of 2 samples was 306,06 cm. (n=8) and 307,65 cm. (n=23). These averages, as far as I know, are unsurpassed. There's no question that Nepal tigers are longer than anywhere else.

The Nepal tigers in the table above were measured 'over curves'. I also have records of Nepal male tigers measured 'between pegs'. The difference between both methods, as was discussed before (see the previous posts), was 2-5 inches in males in northwestern India (Hewett, 1938) and 5,45 inches in males in northeastern India (the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, 1908). After reading everything I have, I concluded it's likely that the way the method was applied in Nepal compared to the way the method was applied in northwestern India. This means we should deduct 2-5 inches in male tigers in order to get to the total length 'between pegs'. For now, I propose to deduct 2-3 inches in short males and 4-5, maybe 6, in long males. This would result in an average of about 9.6 'between pegs', maybe a bit more (range 8.9 - 10.3 or 8.10-10.4). If we decide for a total length of 285-290 cm. 'between pegs' (most probably closer to 290 cm. or even just over), chances are we would be very close to the mark.        

Confirmed in Nepal tigers measured 'between pegs' in those days (1900-1940 roughly)? Yes. The average total length 'between pegs' I found is very close to the average calculated above (range 9.4 to just over 10.0).  

4 - Weight

There's not much on Nepal tigers. What we have, however, strongly suggests that the average for males in Nepal is well over the average calculated for northwestern India. For that region, I got to about 475 lbs. some years ago. If we assume that the correlation between total length and weight in Nepal male tigers is similar to the correlation found in males in northwestern India (likely, as both inhabit the same region), Nepal male tigers should be heavier. Some years ago, I got to 480-500 lbs. (empty). Hewett's data fit perfectly. Same for the males weighed in Chitawan many years later. They averaged 488 lbs. adjusted and 520 lbs. unadjusted.

One of the males (the Sauraha tiger), at 10.2 in total length 'over curves' (and most probably very close to 10.0 'between pegs' if we consider the description of Sunquist on the way the method was applied), bottomed a 500-pound scale when he was first weighed as an adult. Some time later, he bottomed a 600-pound scale. A few years later, another Nepal male tiger weighed by researchers also bottomed a 600-pound scale:

" ... The high productivity of the riverine systems of the Terai may also be responsible for notable characteristics of the local tiger population. For example, Sunquist, Karanth, and Sunquist (1999) have noted that tigers in Chitwan have the smallest home ranges and highest densities in Asia. Male tigers (figure 3.6) captured in Chitwan are also the largest free-ranging Panthera tigris captured to date. Both a male captured by Smithsonian and Nepalese researchers in 1980 (tiger M105) and another captured by our project in 1984 (M026) exceeded 270 kg. 

Amur tigers of the Russian Far East are reported to be the largest in body mass among tiger populations spread across Asia. However, no male Amur tigers captured to date have exceeded the records of body mass reported for Chitwan (Dale Miquelle, personal communication, 1999) ... " ('The return of the unicorns', E. Dinerstein, New York, 2003, pp. 44).

The heaviest wild male Amur tiger weighed by researchers was a young adult male. Although a bit shorter than average, he was 212 kg. (468 lbs.). Some others ranged between 200-207 kg. (442-458 lbs.). The average of those weighed in the last decades is about 190 kg. (420 lbs.), but Miquelle thinks an average male is about 430 lbs. (195 kg.).  

The heaviest wild Amur tiger accepted by researchers, at 560 lbs. (254 kg.), is a male shot by Baikov near the Korean border more than a century ago. The Jankowski's, however, shot (and photographed) a male of 11.6 'over curves' in total length in July 1943 near the Sungari river in Manchuria (China). This tiger was estimated at about 300 kg. (662 lbs.). Although he, according to W.J. Jankowski, who corresponded with V. Mazak, had killed and eaten a large male brown bear a few days before he was shot ('Der Tiger', V. Mazak, 1983, pp. 188-189), there are more reports about wild Amur tigers well exceeding 300 kg. At least 3 of these ranged between 340-384 kg. ('Der Tiger', 1983, pp. 189). Although not one was accepted, authorities agree that wild Amur tigers were heavier in the recent past.

Captive Amur tigers, perhaps, reflect the potential. Some members of forums posted tables with records of captive males. The averages they found ranged between 210-220 kg. (464-484 lbs.), very close to the historical average of wild male Amur tigers.      
   
The decline in size most probably is a result of a combination of habitat destruction, prey depletion and hunting. Less than a century ago (between 1900-1940 roughly), Amur tigers walked the edge. The, atypical, lack of individual variation in Amur tigers could be a result of the population bottleneck they faced in that period. Without Kaplanov, who rang the bell, Amur tigers most probably would have been exterminated.     


c - Conclusions

1 - In the period 1900-1940, 66 male Nepal tigers averaged 303,04 cm. in total length measured 'over curves'. Chitawan male tigers were even longer. The 8 males shot by the party of Sir Harcourt Butler in 1919 averaged 306,06 cm. in total length 'over curves', whereas the 23 males shot by the Maharajah and his guests in the period 1933-1939 averaged 307,65 cm. in total length 'over curves'. The averages for male tigers in Nepal in general and Chitawan in particular are unsurpassed. 

2 - Although the information on the length of Nepal tigers in this post, apart from a few exceptions, is not based on undisputed prime sources, it is considered quite reliable. One could say this conclusion was confirmed by researchers working in Chitawan.           

3 - In the period 1900-1940, as far as I know, only 4 Nepal male tigers have been weighed. One of these, most probably an immature male shot in 1909, was 368 lbs. The longest shot by the Maharajah of Nepal in 1936, at 10.9 'over curves' in total length, was 705 lbs. The other 2, shot in 1909 and 1910, were 487 lbs. (total length 'over curves' 292,10 cm.) and 488 lbs. (total length 'over curves' 302,26 cm.) respectively. If we remove the immature male and the giant shot by the Maharajah, the average of 2 is 487,5 lbs. If we include the 2 others, the average is 512 lbs. (range 368 - 705).  

4 - What to say on weight? In order to get to an answer, we have to do a detour. I propose to go to northwestern India first. 

In the period 1907-1912, Sir John Hewett weighed 15 male tigers shot in northwestern India. They averaged 433,27 lbs. (range 355-570). Of these 15, one male of 366 lbs. had been quite severely wounded some time before he was shot. Another male of 355 lbs. was not quite adult when he was shot. Without these 2, the average of the remaining 13 was 444,46 lbs. The males weighed, however, were quite a bit shorter (292,606 cm. in total length 'over curves') than those not weighed (they averaged just over 300 cm. in total length). Many of those not weighed were described as 'heavy' or 'very heavy'.

I tried to get to an average of those not weighed by using the details of those weighed. The result was then added to the total of those actually weighed. The average of different attempts ranged between 460-490 lbs. for all males shot in northwestern India in the period 1883-1927. As a hypothesis for now, I propose to take 475.

Nepal male tigers are about 2 inches longer than male tigers in northwestern India. Using the same method as described above, I tried to get to an average for Nepal. Most attempts ranged between 480-500 lbs. For now, I propose to take 490.

Is there any way to reject or confirm the proposals regarding average weight of male tigers in northwestern India and Nepal? The answer is no regarding northwestern India and yes, to a degree, regarding Nepal.

In the last decades of the last century, there have been different projects in Nepal. As far as I know, research in Chitawan still is ungoing. What do we know? Well, Chitawan males averaged 488 lbs. adjusted and 520 lbs. unadjusted. All in all, less than 10 males were actually weighed. Of these, 2 bottomed a 600-pound scale. One of the 2, at 10.2 'over curves' in total length, was adjusted to 261 kg. (576 lbs.). This weight was a result of regression. A bit tentative, I think. There are no details about the other male (M026).

All in all, I think the proposal regarding weight in Nepal was confirmed. You could decide to follow Kitchener and go for unreliable because of a lack of adjustment (which in fact is incorrect) and you could opt for another conclusion. Up to you.

5 - There's no doubt that that Nepal male tigers in general (at the level of averages), and those in Chitwan in particular, are the longest and heaviest wild big cats today. I'm not sure about the situation a century ago, because those in the know agree that wild Amur tigers were larger than today's wild Amur tigers. They might have compared to Chitawan male tigers, that is. Chitawan tigers apparently didn't change a lot in a century and there's no reason to assume that Amur tigers would be different. Chitawan, however, didn't change a lot. Not true for Sichote-Alin.    

6 - As to the maximum weight of wild lions and tigers. There's, I think, no question that some of today's male lions ranged between 260-280 kg. One of these, a male of 260 kg, was about 240 kg. adjusted. Not sure about the 2 others. There's also no question that some wild male tigers compared or even slightly exceeded that mark (referring to the 705-lbs. Nepal tiger shot by the Maharajah of Nepal and 'Old One Eye' shot in southwestern India almost a century ago (that tiger was 11.0 'over curves'). The difference is wild tigers in Nepal (and India) seem to do it more often. This although the number of wild tigers In India and Nepal is well below 2500 (about 200 in Nepal and just over 2000 in India). Reply

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XVIII


Nepal (ecosystem and maps)


a - The effect of ecosystems on the size of tigers 

The first posts of this series, as you will remember, mainly consisted of lengthy descriptions on the geography of Nepal in general and southern Nepal in particular. Smythies said the southern part consisted of 3 different regions. These perhaps can be considered as mini-ecosystems. Tigers were seen in all 3 in his day, but today things are somewhat different.

I intended to post a number of Nepal maps in some time to conclude the series, but decided to change the schedule today. The reason is the information posted on a thread recently started by Shardul. The title of the thread is 'The Terai Tiger'. I would advice to have a look, as the information posted is interesting.  

Shardul's view is that Terai tigers are different from those in other parts of India. I agree. One reason is their appearance is somewhat different. Tigers in most parts of southeast Asia (including Sumatra, but not southeastern Russia) often are a bit darker and more marked than those in northern India and Nepal. They also have more and darker stripes. Many tigers in southeastern Asia are jungle dwellers; they are moderately long and have shorter skuills than most lions. Tigers in northwestern India and Nepal, on the other hand, are not as dark, relatively tall and very long. The body proportions also seem to be different.  

Another reason I agree with Shardul is size. Terai tigers, and those in the extreme west of northern India and those in central Nepal (Chitawan) in particular, are longer and heavier than anywhere else (averages). The difference with tigers living in northeastern and southwestern India is limited (about 4 inches), but the constrast with tigers living in other parts of India is more pronounced. For confirmation, have another look at the tables I recently posted.

Those interested in the reasons have to consider different factors. Evolution is one. Tigers spread from southeastern China to other parts of Asia in different waves. The first waves ended in what is now Indonesia (remains of tigers have also been found in Japan, Palawan and Borneo), the Caspian region and Manchuria. Tigers in these regions, so it seems, were not severely affected by the Toba outburst about 75 000 years ago. Tigers in other parts of Asia, however, were. Another wave, many thousands of years later, could have ended in southwest Asia and central India (India had tigers about 12 000 years ago). The Terai was populated a few thousand years later. This wave could have consisted of larger animals. Remember most remarks on evolution have a speculative character.  

Another factor to consider is habitat. Tigers living in dense forests seldom exceed 9 feet in total length 'over curves' and 350 lbs. (males). Those in Sumatra are even shorter and only seldom get to 330. Tigers living in elevated and barren regions could have been a bit larger, but males well exceeding 9 feet 'over curves' and 400 pounds were few even a few centuries ago. Tigers inhabiting elevated regions with forests were a bit larger, but animals exceeding 9.6 'over curves' and 400 pounds on a regular basis were most often seen in forested regions interrupted by savannah-like plains. The reason is these regions had large ungulates. Examples are Annam (Vietnam); parts of Thailand and Cambodja; southern and eastern parts of the Caspian region; Manchuria and southeastern Russia, and central and northern parts of India.

The region just south of the Himalayas, according to Smythies, was ideal tiger country. He wasn't the only one who got to that conclusion. The result was large animals. Male tigers exceeding 10 feet 'over curves' and, say, 450 pounds empty have been recorded in quite many regions, but northern India and, in particular, Nepal always were known for the size of tigers. 

          
b - Map of different landscapes in northern India, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan
         
The map below was posted by PC today on the thread mentioned above ('The Terai Tiger'). It shows 6 different landscapes just south and east of the Himalayas. The Terai Arc, in the extreme west (dark green), is clearly separated from the other 5. This is the region that produced the largest tigers. Male tigers in northwestern India are about 2 inches longer in total length 'over curves' than those in northeastern India (the region in purple), whereas those in Nepal are 2-3 inches longer than those in northwestern India. Tigers in the heart of the Terai Arc landscape (Chitawan) are about 5 inches longer than those in northeastern India.

Remember that tigers in northeastern India are far from small. Kaziranga tigers (just south of the region in purple) could be a bit different from those in the northeast, but I would be surprised if they outsized those in the northeast. There are no data about Bhutan (and Sikkim) tigers (red on the map), but they seem to be large animals. Remember Bhutan tigers, in contrast to those just south of them, inhabit very elevated regions. They are the only true mountain tigers of today.

Let the map sink in. Than read the tables I posted in this series (tigers in northern India and Nepal) again. The conclusion is that the different landscapes produced slightly different tigers. All tigers just south of the Himalayas are large animals, but those in the extreme northwest in particular stand out. This means it is very likely that there is a connection between landscape (ecosystem) and size.

Here's the map of the Himalaya ecoregion first posted by PC:  

*This image is copyright of its original author

c - Map of the Terai Arc Landscape

The map below was also first posted by PC in the thread 'The Terai Tiger'. It has details on the Terai Arc (Indian side). The region not only is large. More important is that there are no large cities. This means that the exchange of genes still is possible (to a degree). This region, with Russia, most probably has the best future.  

I could be wrong, but I think that most large individuals were seen in the extreme northwest.

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - A few Nepal maps


d1 - British India

This map is interesting for more than one reason. Remember the part directly west of Nepal (including Kumaon) used to belong to Nepal. Also remember that Nepal was never part of British India:  

*This image is copyright of its original author

d2 - Old psysical map of Nepal: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

d3 - The former Ghurka Empire:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d4 - Nepal districts:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d5 - Nepal hydro map:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d6 - Nepal ecological map:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d7 - Nepal geology (south of the Himalayas):

*This image is copyright of its original author

e - Conclusion

If you're interested, you could read the first posts in this series again. I think Smythies really did a good job. Add the maps in this post and the tables posted before. This should enable you to get to an answer to the question if there is a connection between landscapes and the size of tigers. My guess is there is (at the level of averages), but there's a bit more to size than ecosystems only. A wild big cat can get to his potential if the conditions are right, but the drive and the limits of size, most unfortunately, are all but unknown. It would be an interesting topic for a debate.  

My take is evolution could be more important than many assume, but the problem is a lack of good information. Will get back to that one in the near future. Reply

[Pckts]

Very nice, well done.
I agree that Kaziranga tigers are most likely heavier than neighboring tigers but I have my doubts if they are larger than "Nepal" tigers. I treat it the same as I treat Ngorongoro lions, most likely crater lions are larger than serengeti lions but that is only in terms of mass, they are essentially the same cat. Which is probably the case with Kaziranga compared to the rest of Assam, Kaziranga or Ngorongoro allow unique living conditions, these conditions cannot be duplicated any where else and thus they create these "super cats" for their specific habitat.

It just goes to show how fast evolution works and how much the landscape and prey base can effect the apex predator that rules it. Reply

[Shardul]

@peter,

I would like to point out a few things regarding your post.

1) The Terai arc map posted by Pckts shows the whole TAL, not just from Indian side. Out of the 49,500 km2 total area, 30,000km2 is in India and the rest in Nepal.

2) Kumaon region (extreme west of the Terai, where present Corbett National Park lies) was never a part of Nepal, but the then United provinces under British India.

3) Chitwan is not in the center of Terai, but the extreme east.

4) We only have measurements from Chitwan National park in the whole of Terai. We don't have any scientific data from other parts, including Corbett National Park or any of the other dozen protected areas. So very difficult to form any conclusion.

5) The typical Terai Bhabar ecosystem is characterized by tall elephant grass, alluvial flood plains and swamps, which is also similar to the river floodplain ecosystem, of which Kaziranga is the last remnant (most of the river floodplain ecosystem has been turned into agricultural land because of its high yield), being sustained by the mighty Brahmaputra river. In that sense, Kaziranga and Chtiwan might have similar ecosystems.

6) Nagarahole National park is in southern India, but the tigers there are about as large as those in Chitwan ( avge 217 kg vs 221 kg). It is part of the western ghats landscape and the Bandipur-Nagarahole-Wayanad-Mudumalai complex. Since nagarahole was the place dr karanth based his studies on, we have the data from there, but there is no evidence to suggest that tigers from bandipur or Wyanad are any smaller, since they too belong to the same landscape.

7) The Western ghats are as dense as any forests can get. Yet the tigers, don't seem to be smaller in any way. Once reason could be the presence of swampy grasslands there that is able to support a high density of large prey. After all it's grass that supports the majority of herbivorous creatures. A forest dense in trees but lacking in grass will never support large population of herbivorous creatures, which in turn will have an effect on the carnivores.

8) The hunter records are from an era when the forests were large and gene flow between tigers was healthy. Today, a lot of the populations are isolated, so that might or might not have an effect on the size of present day tigers. Very difficult to tell. Reply