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

[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