WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
 
Questions and comments thus far ( only at 37:18 in the video)
-Big Tiger head at 26:54 -@29:00 would the large home range of Amurs have more to do with the fact that their are only a few left in the wild as well as the fact that prey is spread so far in the Amurs habitat and coverage is much less compared to Bengals habitat, where they have more abundant prey and better natural coverage? -Wild boar and Reindeer are the most important kills for amurs, which are the 2 largest available prey to them. Before the deforestation and prey eradication, were their any other larger prey available than those two mentioned available?   *This image is copyright of its original author no, it's not a siberian tiger. it's a pure bengal tiger. a wild bengal tiger in the snow. Hello Peter, great write up as usual.  OK my friend, Talk about North Indian and terai tigers, I remember a good news from a Himalayan country. in July 2015, The first national survey of Bhutan tiger population has counted 103 tigers, a significant increase on the previous estimate of 75. really great news from a country known as the lost land of the tiger. and here's some camera trap pictures from this Survey described as a “roaring success.”  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author and the video : Good to know that there is thriving tiger population which indirectly says that Bhutan still has healthy ecosystem and good natural environment. to me they seem to be among the largest bengal tigers together with assam (Kaziranga) and Nepal tigers.
Beautiful information, Alan Rozbinowitz would be very, very proud!
What a magnificent eco system. A side note, Kanwaar said that Himalayan Tigers were the largest of all, not sure if he had seen them or not but he said with out a doubt, Kaziranga and Corbett had the largest big cats he had ever seen, but the Himalayas could have larger.  
Wow! I´m delighted to hear that. Greatly appreciated and thax to the poster
 
This is the video of 3 Amur tiger cubs. If I recall correctly it is same video of a picture which @peter like very much.
27 November 2012, three young tigers appeared near a military unit located 8 km away from Yakovlevka village, Primorsky Krai, in the Russian Far East. The cubs tried to kill a domestic dog on a leash, but a guard scared the animals back into the woods. A group of tiger specialists went to the scene immediately and tried to find out why the cubs were alone in the woods. Unfortunately, no tracks of any mother tiger were found. The specialists decided to catch the cubs and take them to the Amur Tiger Rehabilitation Centre in Alekseevka village where the animals will be provided with food and medical treatment. It is hoped that the three cubs will be released back into the wild to play a vital role in the future survival of these magnificent big cats. Please click on below image to play the video
TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART VI
a - Tables In November last year, I posted on tigers in northern India and Nepal. In spite of the title of these posts, the focus was on Nepal. A lengthy and somewhat one-sided introduction, one could say. I agree. The reason was I had just finished the book of Smythies ('Big game shooting in Nepal', Calcutta, 1942). In the previous posts, I wrote I would inform you on the size of Nepal tigers. I could have opted for a few scans, but decided against it. The reason is I want to prevent selection. As I want to do it in the correct way, I had no other option but to record the measurements of all tigers shot in Nepal. Than tables had to be made. Most, if not nearly all, tables on big cat size are about averages and range. As a reader, you have no other option but to trust the one who made the table. I don't know about you, but I prefer tables with individuals. The reason is I get than the opportunity to go over things myself. This, however, means that the one doing the tables has no option but to invest a lot of time. When I had finished, Nepal tigers had to be compared to tigers in other regions. In order to do so, one needs similar tables based on similar samples. You also need tigers measured in the same way as in Nepal. It was fortunate that they were in regions not that far away (northern and northeastern India). This meant the work I did for Nepal had to be repeated. To keep a long story short. I made it. When I was done, I left it for some days. The reason is I know that most tables will have invisible mistakes, no matter no hard you try. I wasn't disappointed a few days later, when I went over them again. I needed more than one day to correct the mistakes. I'm now ready to post and discuss them. Remember that it is very likely that the tables have more mistakes. The reason is mistakes and humans are just too close. If you see mistakes or have questions, please don't hesitate to tell me. It is about the result in the end: we need reliable tables to start a debate. One more thing. I do not doubt that the tables I will post will be used elsewhere. I don't mind. The moment you post information on a forum, it is in the public domain. This (free exchange of information) is the good thing about the internet. However. I want those who use the tables to be fair and say the tables were made for and first posted on WildFact.
TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART VII
a - Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam (tigresses) Most of those interested in morphology read the book written by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar ('Thirty-seven years of big game shooting in Cooch Behar, the Duars, and Assam. A rough diary. ', Bombay, 1908). I think it is appropiate to start with the information presented in this book, as it most probably still is the most detailed and most reliable set of data. The Maharajah told us in what way the tigers shot were measured. In contrast to many others, he also provided information on body dimensions and weight. Those who read his book often debated about their findings on forums. Although they were close regarding the results, they didn't agree in all respects. One of the reasons is the classified information was lacking. This post has a table with all tigresses shot. It should allow all interested to get to solid conclusions. b - The table (individuals) Although a few tigresses well surpassed 9 feet 'over curves', the short tigresses (no. 13, 19, 27 and 35) were as remarkable. Tigress no. 27 was 8 inches shorter than the next shortest (no. 35). Although I found the locality, I don't know if it was in Cooch Behar, the Duars or Assam. Maybe you can find out more. This tigress measured 'over curves' was shorter than some male leopards measured 'between pegs'. The Maharajah wrote that tigers shot in this district " ... run generally small, although there are some big ones amongst them ... '' (pp. 294). Remember this was in a part of India where tigers often exceeded the average for India (all regions except the Sunderbans and the Naga Hills) in both length and bulk. On forums extra-large tigers often are discussed, but small ones are as interesting. Over the years, I noticed that extra-short tigers and tigresses were measured everywhere in India. As there was no question that they were adult, the question is why they were so much shorter. Individual variation or was there something else? I didn't find an answer, but did notice that short tigers were more often seen in regions located at the edges (the southern, northern and eastern tips of India). Assam, although known for very large individuals, also produced a significant number of extra-short tigers, especially in the southeastern part. One explanation is the Naga Hills are not that far away. As male tigers in particular are known to cover great distances at times, it is likely some Naga Hills tigers reached adjacent regions like Assam. I noticed similar things in other parts of Asia. In some hot spots (good conditions and many large prey animals), tigers reached a large size. A century ago, Annam (Vietnam) produced males similar in size to those in India or even larger. This was one of the reasons American hunters selected Vietnam and not India in the twenties and thirties of the last century. In less attractive districts (denser vegetation, more precipitation and less large prey animals) not that far away, tigers often were much smaller. Anyhow. The information from Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam shows that hunting also had an effect on the average size of tigers over time. I dont think it was a result of selection, as it wasn't easy to contact experienced large tigers when the amount of time available was limited. The most likely reason hunting had an effect over time, was limited numbers. Apex predators never are plentiful. When you remove male tigers that made it to adulthood and a territory (generally more visible than those who didn't), you remove the genes of success. The result is those not tested (young adults) and those unable to get to a territory (smaller animals in most cases) will get a chance to breed. Over time, this will have an effect. Remember this process works different in males and females. In males, the results of removing adults with a territory will be more pronounced than in females because of the nature of the selection system (sexual drive). In spite of that, hunting has an effect on the average size of tigresses over time (two decades only) as well. Table I:  *This image is copyright of its original author c - Averages This is the table with the averages. It is based on the table above. I will compare them to the averages in other regions in a few days. For now, we can say that tigresses in northeast India, at just over 8.9 in total length 'over curves' and 310-311 pounds, were quite heavy for their length. Table II:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now that we know a bit more about the average total length 'over curves', what to say about the total length 'between pegs'? Only one tigress was measured both 'over curves' and 'between pegs'. This tigress (no. 24) was a bit longer than average (just over 9 feet as opposed to just over 8.9 for all). She was 4,75 inches (12,06 cm.) longer when she was measured 'over curves'. As the difference between both methods usually increases with length and most tigresses were a bit shorter, I would suggest 4-4,5 inches (10,16 - 11,43 cm.) for all tigresses for now. This means tigresses in northeastern India most probably averaged 255-257 cm. (8.45-8.55) 'between pegs' in total length a century ago. A tad longer than tigresses shot in the Central Provinces (Dunbar Brander, 1923), that is. They were, however, heavier and this, as will be seen later, is also true for males; a century ago, tigers in northeastern India, compared to those shot in the Central Provinces, were similar in total length, but heavier. Remember that the difference between both methods in northeastern India could have been more pronounced than in northern India. Hewett (2008 reprint, pp. 68 and 70), who had plenty of experience, wrote the difference between both methods in northern India was 2-5 inches in adult tigers (males and females). The reason is the method ('over curves') was applied in a more strict way in northern India. This means that an 8.9 tigress in northern India could have been a bit longer than an 8.9 tigress in northeastern India (both measured 'over curves'). A remarkable conclusion, but it a result of the nature of the method used and the way it was (and is) applied. d - About measurements taken 'over curves' Today's biologists measure big cats 'over curves'. Although it was described as a 'standard method' by Ullas Karanth (2001, pp. 47), different biologists, when asked about the details, offered slightly different explanations. Based on the mails I read, I concluded the 'standard method' could be applied in a strict way in Russia and in a slightly different way in Nepal. This opinion, of course, largely depends on the definition of 'strict'. Miquelle wrote the tape is pressed to the body at all points, whereas Sunquist opted for less curves and more straight lines in Nepal. I'm not sure about Nagarahole (Karanth didn't respond to questions), but Sunquist was there when a few tigers were measured and he apparently didn't see any differences with the method he applied in Nepal. Karanth wrote that " ... tigers captured for radiotelemetry studies in Nagarahole (India), Chitwan (Nepal) and in Sichote-Alin (Russia) ... are all about the same size ... (2001, pp. 48). We also know that if the method used to measure tigers ('over curves') is used in a strict way, the difference between a measurement taken in that way and a measurement taken 'between pegs', in theory, should be limited to 2-5 inches (Hewett, the 2008 reprint, pp. 68 and 70). When tigers in the regions mentioned above really are similar in size, this, in theory, should result in slightly lower averages in the region where the method is used in a strict way. Not so. Nepal tigers, although they were nearly measured 'between pegs' (according to Sunquist), were a trifle longer than tigers in Russia. So what is going on here? Are Nepal tigers longer than Amur tigers? Should we perhaps redefine 'strict'? Maybe the explanations offered by the biologists contacted were a bit incomplete? Or could it be that the 'standard method' just isn't easy to explain? I really wouldn't know the answers to the questions, but it seems best to deduct 3-4 inches for males in Nepal and a bit more in Russia for now. Maybe tigers in Russia really are a bit shorter than those in Nepal, but maybe the samples are just too small to get to reliable conclusions anywhere. And if Nepal tigers are a bit longer, than why is it that captive Amur tigers are the largest captive big cats? Anyhow. If we deduct 3-4 inches for males in Nepal, the averages of tigers measured 'over curves', then and now, nearly perfectly match those of tigers measured 'between pegs'. Same for northern India and Nagarahole. I'm not sure about Russia, though. The reason is a lack of data (most historical data are considered unreliable). It is, however, acknowledged by all authorities that Amur tigers severely suffered from the bottleneck in the twenties, thirties and forties of the last century, when they were down to 30-50 individuals. Amur tigers really walked the edge. We also have to remember they, in contrast to those in India and Nepal, suffer from habitat destruction and prey depletion. You are what you eat. If you eat smallish to moderate amounts and have to work harder for it in conditions described as 'tough', chances are you will lose weight. And, perhaps, length. To a degree, as long bodies are needed to survive the Russian winters. What I'm saying is it seems best to stay away from firm statements on size when tigers have been measured 'over curves' for the reasons mentioned above. Every sample has to be treated as a specific case and one has to be careful when comparing regions. It really depends on the quality of the information offered by the one who measured them. Large samples also help. e - Cooch behar, the Duars and Assam Based on what I read, I concluded that the information offered by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar is accurate and reliable. As 11 tigers were measured both 'over curves' and 'between pegs' (1 female and 10 males), we also are able to get to a decent guesstimate about the length of tigers in a straight line. This allows for a comparison between tigers shot in northeastern India and tigers shot in the Central Provinces, where they were measured 'between pegs'. I do not doubt there was a bit of selection at the gate (most details are from quite large animals), but it is a fact that both samples had extra-short tigers and lacked extra-large animals. Some tigers were gorged, but others were completely empty. Some were old, whereas others most probably were young adults. One can never be sure, but my guess is both samples could have been representative. They also were quite large. As for the tigers shot and not mentioned in the book. I guess quite many were immature. In those days, they not seldom shot anything that moved. All in all, the information on size is quite staggering. I never saw anything that compared. Dismissing it out of hand, as many biologists apparently do, is a bit too easy for my taste. It also is strange when it is known that they measure tigers in the same way. I leave that one up to you.
Nice info Peter.
On amurs in captivity being larger, remember we have no real pure bred Bengal lengths in captivity. And any that we do have aren't differentiated from area to area. They are just labeled "Bengal" which of course can be a large variation between places in India and neighboring areas. So who knows how large a Bengal from Nepal would be in captivity. Next thought is this: I assume Assam is the same as the Serengeti. Lions in the Serengeti are said to be fairly average at most but lions in the crater are said to be the largest. But the crater is practically in the same area as the Serengeti. So Assam tigers may be normal compared to kaziranga tigers which are said to be the largest. Once more proving that specific factors will determine unusual results. Will you be making a table for males as well?
TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART VIII
a - Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam (males) The tables below are based on the books of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar ('Thirty-seven years of big game shooting in Cooch Behar, the Duars, and Assam. A rough diary.', Bombay 1908) and, regarding tigers 90, 91 and 92, J.M. Brown ('Stray sport', Volume 2, London, 1893). I added Brown, because the tigers mentioned in the table on page 240, I think, were shot in the same region and in the same period (before 1893). Furthermore, they were measured in the same way ('over curves'). Not all tigers mentioned in the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar are in the tables. Some were excluded because of their age. For more specifics, read the liner notes below every table. If you read both books and find a mistake, please let me know. Table III:  *This image is copyright of its original author Table IV:  *This image is copyright of its original author Table V:  *This image is copyright of its original author b - Conclusions 1 - The sample is large. It is the largest I know of. This means it most probably is more reliable than other samples. 2 - The Maharajah of Cooch Behar added a lot of details (referring to body dimensions). 3 - The sample has no extra-long tigers; only 1 male (no. 70) slightly exceeded 300,00 cm. (he was just over 9 feet 10) in a straight line and this was a result of his extra long tail (106,68 cm.). 4 - The sample has 4 short (9 feet or less 'over curves') tigers (no. 26, 32, 37 and 62). Apart from these, 19 others (no. 33, 34, 41, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, 78 and 81) ranged between 9.0 - 9.5 (274,32 - 287,02 cm. 'over curves'). This means they most probably didn't exceed 9 feet (294,32 cm.) 'between pegs'. All in all, 23 males didn't exceed 9 feet in total length 'between pegs'. 5 - The totals of the first table (part I) are significantly higher than those of the second (part II) and the third table (part III). Maybe it was a result of selection and maybe more young adults or immature males were shot later (unclear), but my guess is it was a result of hunting. Total length was affected, but not to the extent many would expect. Robustness was more affected. Tigers shot after, say, 1895, were less robust than those shot 1870-1895. As robustness seems to be related to age, chances are that more younger males were shot after 1895 (unclear). Maybe (over)hunting prevented many males to reach old age. c - Tigers measured both 'over curves' and 'between pegs' The problem with samples of tigers measured 'over curves' is that you never quite know how the results have to be interpreted. The reason is the method can be applied in different ways. In some regions (like the Deccan), tigers were 'loosely' measured 'over curves', whereas they were measured 'in a strict way' in others (like northern India). This means that a tiger of, say, 9.8 'over curves' in the Deccan could be (and very often was) a smaller animal than a 9.8 tiger measured in the same way in northern India. This is one of the reasons biologists avoid burning them fingers. It would be easier to just dismiss samples of tigers measured 'over curves', especially when it is known that the measurements were taken by hunters. As some of these were keen on 'records', chances are the method wasn't applied in the correct way. And than there are very important persons who, of course, had to shoot very important tigers. This might have resulted in tapes with 11 inches only. Maybe some hunters measured the skins of the tigers they shot. I could go on for some time, but won't. The point to remember is that is biologists and zoologists don't want to be fooled by hunters and Maharajah's. Mazak ('Der Tiger', 1965) was not that careful and published records of Amur tigers of 12 feet and well over. These tigers were as large as a decent male Kodiak brown bear and the result was that poor Mazak was severely punished by his peers. Although the third, revised, edition of his great book still tops my list (with the book written by Heptner and Sludskij), he most unfortunately never quite recovered. All this to say that I understand why biologists and zoologists avoid samples of tigers measured 'over curves'. They want to be absolutely sure, as the punishment for mistakes (loss of face and reputation) is severe. However. Dismissing samples of tigers measured 'over curves' out of hand just because they were measured in that way in India a long time ago compares to accepting them without any further thought. There are different ways to deal with records of tigers measured in this way. One can read books written by those who measured tigers in both ways ('between pegs' and 'over curves'), one can start measuring tigers himself (as Mazak did), and one can decide for a bit of research and talk to collegues. As far as I know, not one biologist ever perished during a conversation about big cats and methods to measure them. I propose to give it a try and my advice is to start with the sample of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar. Before starting, I would read the book of Sir John Hewett ('Jungle trails in northern India', London, 1938 - Natraj Publishers has a cheap reprint). Hewett was as experienced as they come and he measured tigers both 'over curves' and 'between pegs'. When the method most used in his day ('over curves') was applied in the correct way (strict), the difference between a measurement taken 'over curves' and one taken 'between pegs' was 2-5 inches in adult tigers (males and females). For most males (Natraj Publishers reprint, pp. 70), the difference apparently was 2-3 inches only. Were ten-footers included? Yes. But others wrote the difference between both methods could be as much as 12 inches. Also true? Yes. What to make of all that? The answer is it depends. Every sample is different. Before you start on the measurements, try to find as much as you can about the writer and the way he measured big cats. In order to get there, you have to read many books. In most of them, you will find information you can use. Record every piece of it and try to get to a conclusion. If you can't, leave it. If you can, publish. The Maharajah of Cooch Behar measured tigers 'over curves'. After the debate on methods in British India in the eighties and nineties of the 19th century, he, in 1898, started measuring tigers both 'between pegs' and 'over curves' (up to 1902). Only 11 of them were measured in that way, but 11 is better than zero. Here's a table with the tigers measured in both ways. Table VI:  *This image is copyright of its original author Although the average of the 10 male tigers measured 'between pegs' was 276,35 cm. (just below 9.1), most fell (well) short of that mark. One could say the longest tiger (no. 70 in the third table) severely affected the average. The 10 males measured 'between pegs' were a bit shorter than average (referring to the total length measured 'over curves') and not as robust as most others. In spite of that, they only lacked a few pounds. The table strongly suggests that male tigers of 9.6-9.7 in total length 'over curves' were about 5,5 inches shorter when they would have been measured 'between pegs'. Not in general, but those shot in the region in which the Maharajah hunted between 1870-1908. Although there is some individual variation, the difference between both methods seems to increase with length: the longer the tiger, the more pronounced the difference. It is, however, very likely that tigers of that length measured in the same way in northern India (and Nepal, I think) would have been a bit longer when they would have been measured 'between pegs'. Confusing perhaps, but this is a result of the way the method was applied in both regions. d - Differences between 3 groups As a result of the wealth of information offered by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, we are able to distinguish between 3 different groups. The first group (a) is all male tigers. The second group (b) consists of male tigers measured both 'over curves and 'between pegs'. The third © has gorged or immature animals only. In order to prevent too many details, I just made a table with averages and range. Table VII:  *This image is copyright of its original author The conclusion is the differences are very limited. Gorged tigers (average 512,57 lbs.) were 59,02 lbs. heavier than the others (average 453,55 lbs.). As the last sample (the remaining 46 males) most probably included a few young adults and 1 very old male, the real average (healthy adult males only) could have been a bit higher. Also remember that 23 animals 9.0 or less when they would have been measured 'between pegs'. Although a trifle shorter than those shot by Dunbar Brander in the Central Provinces (his sample had 42 males, of which 2 exceeded 10 feet in total length 'between pegs'), they were significantly heavier (461,34 lbs. as opposed to 420 in the central Provinces). The conclusion is tigers in northeastern India, well over a century ago, were about average in total length, but more robust. e - Skull length of 19 male tigers The first 7 tigers in the table below were shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam. They averaged 381,73 mm. (just over 15 inches) in greatest total skull length. These 7 tigers, at 493,80 pounds and 307,61 cm. in total length (roughly 290,00-295,00 cm. 'between pegs') were significantly longer and heavier than average. In skull circumference, however, the difference with the others was limited. In other words, skull circumference is an indicator of skull length, but not a strong one. Total length and weight could be more important. As these usually correspond with age, age could be the decisive factor. The other tigers in the table are from Hawkins (who wrote a letter to the JBNHS with details of two large tigers shot in northeastern India), Eardley-Wilmot ('Life and sport in India', London, 1910) and Hewett ('Jungle trails in northern India', London, 1938). Although 3 of them (no. 10, 11 and 12), skullwise, are shorter than average, the 19 males in the table averaged 375,23 mm. in greatest total skull length. The information in this table isn't representative for all male Indian tigers, as nearly all skulls belonged to large animals (the average total length 'over curves' of 17 was no less than 10 feet, whereas one of the other 2 was 10.4 'between pegs' in total length). Most Indian males range between 330,00-380,00 mm. in greatest total skull length (average 350,00-355,00 mm.). The table, on the other hand, also can't be used to dismiss records of large skulls of Indian tigers out of hand. They were not measured by local witch-doctors, but by experienced taxidermists or Forest Officers. The only skull about which I have serious doubts is no. 19. The reason is Hewett's comment: " ... Next morning, we found the tiger dead, about sixty yards from where he was fired at. 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 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, breadth - 9.7/8 inches, weight cleaned 4 lb. 14 oz. ... " (pp. 180, reprint). It is about the last part of the sentence in black ('over the bone'). I don't quite know what to make of it, but it could be the skull was measured with a flexible tape that followed the curve of the upper skull. If so, the measurement is invalid. The length of a skull should be measured in a straight line. If the skull, as I now think, was measured following the curve of the upper skull, the real length (measured in a straight line) would have been considerably less. I wouldn't know how much, as I never measured a skull in this way. My guess for now would be that the skull could have been a little over 14 inches in greatest total length. This would explain the moderate width (a zygomatic width of 250,83 mm. does not correspond with a greatest skull length of 412,75 mm.). For more info, go to post 871. If I'm right, it means that the skull of tiger 08 in table VIII (below) would be the longest about which a reliable record exists. Table VIII:  *This image is copyright of its original author f - Averages Although the averages were given in table V, I decided for a table with an overview in spite of that. Please remember the remarks made before: the sample is large (and most probably quite representative); it has 23 males that didn't exceed 9 feet (274,32 cm.) in total length if they would have been measured 'between pegs', and only 1 who, as a result of his long tail, exceeded 9.10 (299,72 cm.) 'between pegs'. It has no exceptional animals, that is. In total length, they could have been about average. In weight, however, they exceeded males shot in the Central Provinces in about the same period (see Dunbar Brander, 'Wild animals of Central India', London, 1923). Table IX:  *This image is copyright of its original author If we use the information from table IV, the conclusion is that male tigers shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam shot between 1870-1908 most probably averaged about 280,00-281,00 cm. 'between pegs' (head and body 189,00-190,00 cm. and tail 93,00-94,00 cm.). At that length, they averaged 461,00-462,00 lbs. (range 371,00-550,00). Large skulled (and most probably old) male tigers averaged 307,00-308,00 cm. 'over curves' (290,00-295,00 cm. 'between pegs' roughly) and 493,00-494,00 lbs. (Table VI). The book of the Maharajah has a number of photographs. If these are compared to photographs of today's tigers in that region, today's tigers seem a bit larger. Using the tables in this post, we could say that prime male tigers in that region most probably are at least 9.6 'between pegs' and over 500 lbs. empty. Quite many males seem to have exceptional skulls as well. My guess is some of them will range between 14,5 - 16,0 inches in greatest total length (368,30 - 406,40 mm.). Still a bit shorter than skulls of large lions, but the difference is limited and tiger skulls could be as wide or a trifle wider. g - Selection at the gate 1 (weight) Even experienced hunters going for exceptional animals agreed it was difficult to contact big male tigers at the best of times, let alone shoot them. Most of the tigers they were after were old, experienced, elusive and wary animals. They seldom accepted baits and were on the move most of the time. Tigers shot in big hunts in the last decades of the 19th century (like in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam) were not often baited. The one organising the hunt selected a region, collected a number of elephants and hired (local) beaters. Baits were used at times, but in most cases they just entered the district targeted and hoped for the best. In many cases, they shot at everything that moved (cubs included). Some tigers shot in this way were gorged, whereas others were empty. My take is that the averages found do not need to be corrected if the sample is large enough (50 or more). It is, however, likely that well-organized hunts like those in the first decades of the 20th century in northern India and Nepal (see my previous posts) would have produced relatively more gorged tigers. The reason is hunting (and the art of baiting) had been developed by that time. The organisers didn't want their guests to go home empty-handed and had the means to achieve their goal. Furthermore, tigers in those regions (like Nepal) often had not been hunted before. For this reason, the averages found for weight have to be taken with some care. This, however, is different from deducting 60-70 lbs. from every sample out of hand. h - Selection at the gate 2 (length) Recent research says quite many of us cheat in some way most of the time. To a degree, of course, but 'every day', most unfortunately, has to be added. Research also says those who have a masters degree in this respect usually are the most happy people you can find. What to say about that? You can't cheat everywhere all the time, of course. It depends. If you are a scientist, chances are cheating could result in a premature leave and a loss of reputation. If it is discovered, of course. This, however, is the problem. Many of those accused of cheating are confronted many years after the event. If you look for details, you will often find that many of them had powerful enemies. Enemies not interested in integrity per se, but something else. To them, it was a means to an end. Different from acting in the spirit of the law, but there you have it. Anyhow. The thing to remember is cheating is part of life for most. How about those hunting tigers and writing books about the size of the animals they shot a century ago? The answer is nothing can be excluded. But cheating in a field where other are able to check your results to a degree had some risks. If you produced 10-footers at an alarming rate in a region where only few exceeded 9 feet, chances are you would be confronted by problems sooner or later. Another thing to consider is status. A century ago, positions, apart from those involved in nobility and all the rest of it, were a result of education, quality, experience and, not seldom, age (seniority). This means you often had to work hard for many years to get to the position you wanted. When you had reached your goal, you had a lot to lose. Many would not even have contemplated extending accepted limits. When you, positionwise, had reached the Premier League, honour and things like that came into play as well. All this to say that cheating was not likely in some parts of society back then. I can hear you say interesting, but what is the connection between this and cheating with measurements? Well, hunting tigers didn't come cheap. Those who could afford it, often operated in the Premier League (the Indian Army included). The last thing they would have wanted was too many ten-footers and gossip about stretched-out skins, 11-inch tapes and things like that. Last but not least, there is character. Those involved in serious tiger hunting often were well-trained, experienced and very fit men. Not seldom, they walked hundreds of miles in wild country and scorging heat. Quite many of them met with fate and got hurt at some stage. Talking serious injuries here. In spite of that, only few had to abandon tiger hunting. I read their stories and talked to a few of them. The thing I remembered most is that if you live in this way, fooling yourself is the last thing you want. One reason is your life depends on correct assessments and good choices. Another is fooling yourself could result in loss of self respect. Besides, they didn't really need it. What they did was more than good enough. The last thing that would come to mind when I think of them is cheating. If they say their biggest was 10 feet 4 'over curves' and well over 500 empty, than that is more than good enough for me. I don't need appeasers on the average size of tigers to accept their records. The reason is I feel I know them. Today is the day of internet and social media. Although there are many advantages, it also is a fact that quite many have become so involved, that they have more or less disappeared from this dimension. An interesting experiment no doubt, but it also is known that many use the increased social distance between humans (typical for quite many modern humans devoting their life to social interaction, so it seems) to cheat. In capitals, I'm afraid. And then there are those using their position and responsabily to create inequality. This although the constitution in the countries in which they, ehh, 'represent' the people says humans have to be treated equal, no matter what. As far as I know, colour, religion, social background, thought (and pysical (dis)ability) were declared irrelevant, but maybe that's just an interpretation. I like constitutions, but their time, so it seems, is past and gone. A great pity. To get to the point of this paragraph. Research says that today's humans and cheating are good friends. A century ago, however, things might have been a bit different, especially in the Premier League of society. Those involved in tiger hunting in British India in particular most probably were fair in their descriptions. The main reasons were status and the need for sound decisions. Based on what I read, I'd say that the general attitude of people could have been a bit different back then. Not a few of today's biologists, however, have serious doubts about records of a century ago. This although they use the same method to measure tigers ('over curves') and face similar problems as those who used this, unreliable, method a century ago. The arguments used to dismiss records of, say, a century ago, do not seem based on intimate knowledge of specific samples and those involved in tiger hunting. In many respects, they compare to unsound, if not unfair, mantras based on exceptions. As these still are repeated by many at every possible opportunity, valuable information has more or less been sidelined. A great waste, but there you have it. Let me put it in this way. If I was forced to choose between an average Prime Minister (or someone running for President) surrounded by experienced advisors and a nice job in his right hand and an average tiger hunter with an invitation in his left, I would need about 0,2 seconds. Nothing can be excluded. Some of those who hunted tigers might have been less than fair. To me, they compare to those I saw when I was working for a friend. Referring to the law and all that. Experience told me you can smell sweat in less than one paragraph. At most. The word to remember is experience. Personal experience. Not prejudice. Or hearsay. i - The biggest Indian tigers The Maharajah of Cooch Behar, compared to Corbett, Hewett and those invited to hunt in Nepal (as will be seen later), wasn't very lucky. The tigers he and his guests shot, however, were anything but small. His average for weight, as far as I know, still is unsurpassed. Table VI has a male tiger of 10.4 'between pegs' (314,96 cm.) shot in 1946 in Kheri. Although very long, the 9.8 (294,64 cm.) Assam tiger, shot in 1954 and also measured 'between pegs' (about 10.2-10.3 'over curves') was much more robust. I have more records of exceptional male tigers I consider reliable. There are many posters who have serious doubts about exceptional big cats. I understand, but have to add that I saw a few myself in the facilities I visited. And then there are the documentaries I saw and those who saw or shot them in wild India a century some time ago. It seems best to refer to Sunquist and Dinerstein. Both weighed a male who bottomed a 600-pound scale in Nepal. Here's 3 photographs of today's tigers. The first 2 were posted by Roflcopters. The third was posted by PC recently:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author The photographs show that exceptional tigers still exist. Good conditions, protection, a decent population size, corridors and individual variation will produce a few giants every now and then. The first two tigers are from northern India (not Nepal), whereas the third was found dead recently in Deolapar. The last tiger allegedly had a head and body length of 213 cm., most probably measured 'over curves' (just below 200,00 cm. 'between pegs'). Similar to the Sauraha tiger from Chitwan (Nepal), who bottomed a 600-pound scale. The Deolapar tiger, however, seems a bit more robust. There are more tigers of this size in India and Nepal. They were and are few and far between, but they are there. This although the number of tigers is very limited (just over 2000 in India). Some big male African lions, at least regarding head and body length (and perhaps weight), could be similar, but Indian and Nepal tigers seem to do it more often. Same for skulls, but the other way round: some male Indian tigers probably reach 16 inches in greatest total length or a bit over every now and then, but male lions do it more often. One last remark to finish the post. Reading the book of the Maharajah wasn't a great pleasure (they overshot some districts and made no exception for tigresses with cubs), but it is a fact that he delivered the largest sample we have. Many won't use the information for the reasons stated above, but dismissing it would be a great waste. This is the reason I made the tables. One day in the future, a table on the size of today's Indian tigers will be published. The tables in this post could be used to compare then and now.
Isn't it crazy that after all of our debates over verified records and not using hunting records, etc. Once we qualified the information used, its amazing that the averages of 208kg (or so) seems to be extremely reliable whether using hunting records or verified records. A large male, an "above average" if you will seems to be anything over 220kg and anything over the 250kg mark seems to be in the "monster" category.
Great info, very cool to see it all put in front of us. 
There's no correlation between skull length and body mass in those 5 specimens, quite unfortunate in terms of predictive power. Isometry it is.
TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART IX
Northern India a - The difference between a measurement taken 'over curves ' in northern India and one taken in northeastern India The information on northern India is from Sir John Hewett's book 'Jungle trails in northern India', which was published in 1938. It was reprinted by Natraj Publishers in 2008. I have the reprint. Hewett was an administrator in British India with a passion for big game hunting. Although tigers in particular feature in his book, it also has interesting information on the social structures and cultures traditions of the day of the Raj. Hewett is one of the few who wrote about wolf children: " ... It was the custom in those days to pay a visit now and then to the Orphanage at Secundra near Agra to see the wolf-boy there. In his book 'Jungle life in India' (1880), Mr. V. Ball of the Geological Survey of India, describes the visit which he paid in August 1874, three years before I first went to Agra, to see this same wolf-boy. He remarks, with obvious truth, that the majority of people seem to be unable to discuss the question of wolf-children without prejudice. In those days the reports given to police stations of the district that wolves had taken children away were frequent. The Jumna and its tributary, the Chambal, have enormous areas of ravines, the habitat of wolves, and one of my less pleasant duties was to arrange for the payment of criminal tribes known as Kanjars and Sansias, of rewards for the destruction of wolves. These wild men showed great ingenuity in doctoring jackals' heads to imitate those of wolves and, though I often detected fraud, I should be sorry to say that I always did. But to return to Mr. Ball. The report of the superintendant of the Secundra Orphanage in 1872 that a boy of about ten had been burned out of a den in the company of wolves had attracted Mr. Ball's notice. In reply to his inquiries, the Superintendant wrote that they had had two such boys. One, who had been brought in from the Mainpuri district in March 1872, always remained very wild and died after a few months. The other, stated by the superintendant to be thirteen or fourteen years old in 1872, had been in the orphanage for six years and was the one Mr. Ball saw in 1874 ... " (pp. 15-16). I posted the entire part on wolf children in a seperate thread (go to 'Miscellaneous'). I know most of you are not that interested, but I would advice to read it anyhow. To return to tigers. Although it lacked the details typical for the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar (referring to information on body dimensions), Hewett´s book, in my opinion, easily compares. It too has a wealth of information. The chapter 'Statistics of lengths and weights of tigers' in particular is interesting. Hewett took his time explaining how tigers were measured and he also was able to compare the two methods most used in northern India in those days ('over curves' and 'between pegs'). I could quote the most interesting parts, but decided to keep it short. This is the part to remember, I think: " ... I have found when the actual measurement of tigers has been done by myself, or under my personal observation, often by Mr. Hodgart of the Museum staff at Calcutta, that the measurement by the two systems has differed from two to as much as five inches, the smaller measurement being always of course when taken between pegs. For this reason, and because, if the measurement over the curve is made with the extreme care it demands, it must, in my judgement, give an accurate measurement of tigers killed in the present day, while it provides the only means of comparison with the records of sportsmen of past generations ..., I have preferred to use it as the record for all the tigers that I have seen killed; and I have a record for every one of them carefully measured and set down at the time ... " (pp. 68). As clear as it gets. One more quote to remember. After discussing a number of records, Hewett wrote: " ... These measurements were, I believe, all taken over the curves, and correspond very closely to those taken by Dunbar-Brander and others, allowing for two or three inches of difference, between pegs ... " (pp. 70). In other words. In northern India, they took their time measuring a tiger. The differences between both methods most used ('over curves' and 'between pegs') were limited to 2-5 inches (pp. 68). In Hewett's opinion, the difference was 2-3 inches in most cases (males). In Cooch Behar, as was discussed before (see table VI in post 866), the average difference between both methods was 5,45 inches in 10 adult males. This means the method used ('over curves') was applied in different ways in both regions. The conclusion is that a tiger of, say, 9.8 'over curves' was about 9.2-9.3 'between pegs' in northeastern India and, most probably, about 9.5-9.6 'between pegs' in northern India: a difference of 2-3 inches . In females, the difference would have been a bit less pronounced (1-2 inches). All clear? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |