Natural History of the Mammalia of India and Ceylon Part 34

This has been noticed in menageries, confirming a common Arab a.s.sertion. In the London Zoological Gardens, during the last twenty years, there has been much mortality among the lion cubs by a malformation of the palate. It is a curious fact that lions breed more readily in travelling menageries than in stationary ones.

NO. 201. FELIS TIGRIS.

_The Tiger_ (_Jerdon's No. 104_).

NATIVE NAME.--_Bagh_, _Sher_, Hindi; _Sela-vagh_, _Go-vagh_, Bengali; _Wuhag_, Mahrathi; _Nahar_ in Bundelkund and Central India; _Tut_ of the hill people of Bhagulpore; _Nongya-chor_ in Gorukpore; _Puli_ in Telegu and Tamil; also _Pedda-pulli_ in Telegu; _Parain-pulli_ in Malabar; _Huli_ in Caranese; _Tagh_ in Tibet; _Suhtong_ in Lepcha; _Tukh_ in Bhotia.

These names are according to Jerdon. _Bagh_ and _Sher_ all Indian sportsmen are familiar with. The Gonds of the Central Provinces call it _Pullial_, which has an affinity with the southern dialects.

HABITAT.--The tiger, as far as we are concerned, is known throughout the Indian peninsula and away down the eastern countries to the Malayan archipelago. In Ceylon it is not found, but it extends to the Himalayas, and ranges up to heights of 6000 to 8000 feet.

Generally speaking it is confined to Asia, but in that continent it has a wide distribution. It has been found as far north as the island of Saghalien, which is bisected by N. L. 50 degrees. This is its extreme north-eastern limit, the Caspian Sea being its westerly boundary. From parallel 50 degrees downwards it is found in many parts of the highlands of central Asia.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Head of Tiger.]

DESCRIPTION.--A large heavy bodied Cat, much developed in the fore-quarters, with short, close hair of a bright rufous ground tint from every shade of pale yellow ochre to burnt sienna, with black stripes arranged irregularly and seldom in two individuals alike, the stripes being also irregular in form, from single streaks to loops and broad bands. In some the brows and cheeks are white, and in all the chin, throat, breast, and belly are pure white. All parts, however, whether white or rufous, are equally pervaded by the black stripes. The males have prolonged hairs extending from the ears round the cheeks, forming a ruff, or whiskers as they are sometimes called, although the true whiskers are the l.a.b.i.al bristles. The pupil of the tiger's eye is round, and not vertical, as stated by Jerdon.

SIZE.--Here we come to a much-vexed question, on which there is much divergence of opinion, and the controversy will never be decided until sportsmen have adopted a more correct system of measurement.

At present the universal plan is to measure the animal as it lies on the ground, taking the tape from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail. I will undertake that no two men will measure the same tiger with equal results if the body be at all disturbed between the two operations. If care be not taken to raise the head so as to bring the plane of the skull in a line with the vertebrae, the downward deflection will cause increased measurement. Let any one try this on the next opportunity, or on the dead body of a cat. Care should be taken in measuring that the head be raised, so that the top of the skull be as much as possible in a line with the vertebrae. A stake should be then driven in at the nose and another close in at the root of the tail, and the measurement taken between the two stakes, and not round the curves. The tail, which is an unimportant matter, but which in the present system of measurement is a considerable factor, should be measured and noted separately. I am not a believer in tails (or tales), and have always considered that they should be excluded from measurements except as an addition. I spoke of this in 'Seonee'

in the following terms: "If all tigers were measured honestly, a twelve-foot animal would never be heard of. All your big fellows are measured from stretched skins, and are as exaggerated as are the accounts of the dangers incurred in killing them--at least in many cases. But even the true method of measuring the unskinned animal is faulty; it is an apparent fact that a tail has very little to do with the worthiness of a creature, otherwise our bull-dogs would have their caudal appendages left in peace. Now every s.h.i.+kari knows that there may be a heavy tiger with a short tail and a light bodied one with a long tail. Yet the measurement of each would be equal, and give no criterion as to the size of the brute. Here's this tiger of yours; I call him a heavy one, twenty-eight inches round the fore-arm, and big in every way, yet his measurement does not sound large (it was 9 feet 10 inches), and had he six inches more tail he would gain immensely by it in reputation. The biggest panther I ever shot had a stump only six inches long; and according to the usual system of measuring he would have read as being a very small creature indeed."

Tails do vary. Sir Walter Elliot was a very careful observer, and in his comparison of the two largest males and two largest females, killed between 1829 and 1833, out of 70 to 80 specimens, it will be seen that the largest animal in each s.e.x had the shortest tail:--

--------------------------------------------------------------- Adult Male. Adult Female.

------------------------+-------------------+------------------ ft. in. ft. in. ft. in. ft. in.

Length of head and body 6 2 5 6 5 3-1/2 5 2 Length of tail 3 1-1/2 3 3 2 11 3 2 ---------+--------- --------- -------- 9 3-1/2 8 9 8 2-1/2 8 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Campbell, in his notes to 'The Old Forest-Ranger,' gives the dimensions of a tiger of 9 ft. 5 in. of which the tail was only 2 ft. 10 in. From the other detailed measurements it must have been an enormous tiger. The number of caudal vertebrae in the tiger and lion should be twenty-six. I now regret that I did not carefully examine the osteology of all short-tailed tigers which I have come across, to see whether they had the full complement of vertebrae.

The big tiger in the museum is short by the six terminal joints = three inches. This may have occurred during life, as in the case of the above-quoted panther; anyhow the tail should, I think, be thrown out of the calculation. Now as to the measurement of the head and body, I quite acknowledge that there must be a different standard for the sportsman and for the scientific naturalist. For the latter the only reliable data are derived from the bones. Bones cannot err.

Except in very few abnormal conditions the whole skeleton is in _accurate_ proportion, and it has lately struck me that from a certain measurement of the skull a true estimate might be formed of the length of the skeleton, and approximately the size of the animal over the muscles. I at first thought of taking the length of the skull by a craniometer, and seeing what portion of the total length to the posterior edge of the sacrum it would be, but I soon discarded the idea on account of the variation in the supra-occipital process.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Tiger's skull (under part).]

I then took the palatal measurement, from the outer edge of the border in which the incisors are set to the anterior inside edge of the brain-hole, or foramen magnum, and I find that this standard is sufficiently accurate, and is 5.50 of the length taken from the tip of the premaxillaries to the end of the sacrum. Therefore the length of this portion of any tiger's skull multiplied by 5.50 will give the measurement of the head and body of the skeleton.

For the purpose of working out these figures I applied to all my sporting friends for measurements of their largest skulls, with a view to settling the question about tigers exceeding eleven feet.

The museum possesses the skeleton of a tiger which was considered one of the largest known, the cranial measurement of whose skull is 14.50 inches, but the Maharajah of Cooch Behar showed me one of his skulls which exceeded it, being 15 inches. Amongst others I wrote to Mr. J. s.h.i.+llingford of Purneah, and he most kindly not only drew up for me a tabular statement of the dimensions of the finest skulls out of his magnificent collection, but sent down two for my inspection. Now in the long-waged war of opinion regarding the size of tigers I have always kept a reserved att.i.tude, for if I have never myself killed, or have seen killed by others, a tiger exceeding ten feet, I felt that to be no reason for doubting the existence of tigers of eleven feet in length vouched for by men of equal and in some cases greater experience, although at the same time I did not approve of a system of measurement which left so much to conjecture.

There is much to be said on both sides, and, as much yet remains to be investigated, it is to be hoped that the search after the truth will be carried on in a judicial spirit. I have hitherto been ranged on the side of the moderate party; still I was bound to respect the opinion of Sir Joseph Fayrer, who, as not only as a sportsman but as an anatomist, was ent.i.tled to attention; and from my long personal acquaintance I should implicitly accept any statement made by him.

Dr. Jerdon, whom I knew intimately, was not, I may safely a.s.sert, a great tiger s.h.i.+kari, and he based his opinion on evidence and with great caution. Mr. J. s.h.i.+llingford, from whom I have received the greatest a.s.sistance in my recent investigations, and who has furnished me with much valuable information, is on the other hand the strenuous a.s.sertor of the existence of the eleven-foot tiger, and with the magnificent skulls before me, which he has sent down from Purneah, I cannot any longer doubt the size of the Bengal tiger, and that the animals to which they belonged were eleven feet, _measured sportsman fas.h.i.+on_--that is round the curves. The larger of the two skulls measures 15.25 inches taken between two squares, placed one at each end; a tape taken from the edge of the premaxillaries over the curve of the head gives 17.37 inches; the width across the zygomatic arches, 10.50.[10] The palatal measurement, which is the test I proposed for ascertaining the length of the skeleton, is 12.25, which would give 5 feet 7.37 inches; about 3-3/4 inches larger than the big skeleton in the Museum. This may seem very small for the body of an animal which is supposed to measure eleven feet, but I must remind my readers that the bones of the biggest tiger look very small when denuded of the muscles; and the present difficulty I have to contend with is how to strike the average rate for the allowance to be added to skeleton for muscles, the chief stumbling block being the system which has. .h.i.therto included the tail in the measurement. It all tigers had been measured as most other animals (except felines) are--i.e. head and body together, and then the tail separately--I might have had some more reliable data to go upon; but I hope in time to get some from such sportsmen as are interested in the subject. I have shown that the tail is not trustworthy as a proportional part of the total length; but from such calculations as I have been able to make from the very meagre materials on which I have to base them, I should allow one 2.50th part of the total length of skeleton for curves and muscles.

[Footnote 10: At Mr. s.h.i.+llingford's request, I made over this skull to the Calcutta Museum.]

In addition to a careful study of De Blainville's 'Osteographie,'

where the bones are figured in large size to scale, I have made many careful measurements of skulls belonging to myself and friends, and also of the skulls and skeletons in the Calcutta Museum (for most willing and valuable a.s.sistance in which I am indebted to Mr. J.

c.o.c.kburn, who, in order to test my calculations, went twice over the ground); and I have adopted the following formula as a tentative measure. I quite expect to be criticised, but if the crude idea can be improved on by others I shall be glad.

I now give a tabular statement of four out of many calculations made, but I must state that in fixing an arbitrary standard of 36 inches for tail, I have understated the mark, for the tails of most tigers exceed that by an inch or two, though, on the other hand, some are less.

_Formula_.--Measure from the tip of the premaxillaries or outer insertion of the front teeth (incisors) along the palate to the nearest inner edge of the foramen magnum. Multiply the result by 5.50.

This will give the length of the skeleton, excluding the tail. Divide this result by 2.50, and add the quotient to the length for the proportionate amount of muscles and gain in curves. Add 36 inches for tail.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Palatal Add one measure- 2.50th ment part of multi- last for plied curves by and Total.

5.50. muscles. Tail. inches ft. in.

-------------------+----------+----------+-------+-------------- Mr. s.h.i.+llingford's 67.37 26.94 36.00 130.31 10 10 tiger Big tiger in 63.52 25.40 36.00 124.92 10 4-3/4 museum Maharajah of Cooch 66.00 26.40 36.00 128.40 10 8.4 Behar's tiger A medium-sized one 55.75 23.10 36.00 116.85 9 8-3/4 of my own ---------------------------------------------------------------- Remarks: Mr. s.h.i.+llingford's tiger's tail was over 3 ft. 2 in., which would make it 11 ft. The Maharajah writes to me that his measured on the ground 9 ft. 11 in. See further on.

It will be seen that my calculation is considerably out in the Cooch Behar tiger, so I asked the Maharajah to tell me, from the appearance of the skull, whether the animal was young or old. He sent it over to me, and I have no hesitation in saying that it was that of a young tiger, who, in another year, might have put on the extra nine inches; the parietal sutures, which in the old tiger (as in Mr.

s.h.i.+llingford's specimens) are completely obliterated, are in this one almost open. It must be remembered that the bones of the skull do not grow in the same ratio to the others, and that they attain their full size before those of the rest of the body. Therefore it is only in the case of the adult that accurate results can be calculated upon. Probably I have not done wisely in selecting a portion of the skull as a standard--a bone of the body, such as a femur or humerus might be more reliable--but I was driven to it by circ.u.mstances. Sportsmen, as a rule, do not keep anything but the skull, and for general purposes it would have been of no use my giving as a test what no one could get hold of except in a museum.

I have always understood that the tiger of the plains grew to a greater size, that is in length, than the tiger of hilly country.

I have never shot a tiger in Lower Bengal, therefore I cannot judge of the form of the beast, whether he be more lanky or not. If an eleven-foot Bengal tiger be anything like as robust in proportion as our Central Indian ones, I should say he was an enormous creature, but I believe the Central and Southern tiger to be the heavier one, and this is borne out by an ill.u.s.tration given by Mr. s.h.i.+llingford in one of his able letters, which have called forth so much hostile criticism. He compares one of his largest with the measurement of a Southern India tiger:--

-------------------------------------------------------- Locality of Tiger. Purneah Southern India Length. 11 ft. 0 in. 10 ft. 2 in.

Girth of Chest. 4 ft. 6 in. 6 ft. 1 in.

Girth of Head. 2 ft. 10 in. 3 ft. 5 in.

Tail. 3 ft. 4 in. 3 ft. 1 in.

Round Fore-arm. 2 ft. 2 in. 2 ft. 10 in.

Height. 3 ft. 7 in. 3 ft. 9 in.

Total of ft. and in. 27 ft. 5 in. 29 ft. 4 in.

The shorter tiger has an advantage of nearly two feet in all-round measurement.

Sir Joseph Fayrer has also been called in question for his belief in twelve feet tigers, but what he says is reasonable enough. "The tiger should be measured from the nose along the spine to the tip of the tail, as he lies dead on the spot where he fell, before the skin is removed. _One that is ten feet by this measurement is large, and the full-grown male does not often exceed this_, though no doubt larger individuals (males) are occasionally seen, and I have been informed by Indian sportsmen of reliability that they have seen and killed tigers over twelve feet in length." ('Royal Tiger of Bengal,'

p. 29).

Sir Joseph Fayrer in a letter to _Nature_, June 27, 1878, brings forward the following evidence of large tigers shot by sportsmen whose names are well known in India.

Lieutenant-Colonel Boileau killed a tiger at Muteara in Oude, in 1861, over 12 feet; the skin when removed measured 13 feet 5 inches.

Sir George Yule has heard once of a 12-foot tiger fairly measured, but 11 feet odd inches is the largest he has killed, _and that twice or thrice_.

Colonel Ramsay (Commissioner) killed in k.u.maon a tiger measuring 12 feet.

Sir Joseph Fayrer has seen and killed tigers over 10 feet, and one in Purneah 10 feet 8 inches, in 1869.

Colonel J. Sleeman does not remember having killed a tiger _over_ 10 feet 6 inches in the skin.

Colonel J. MacDonald has killed one 10 feet 4 inches.

The Honourable R. Drummond, C.S., killed a tiger 11 feet 9 inches, measured before being skinned.

Colonel Shakespeare killed one 11 feet 8 inches.

However, conceding that all this proves that tigers do reach occasionally to eleven and even twelve feet, it does not take away from the fact that the average length is between nine and ten feet, and anything up to eleven feet is rare, and up to twelve feet still more so.[11]

[Footnote 11: Since writing the above I have to thank "Meade Sh.e.l.l"

for the measurements of the skull of a tiger 11 ft. 6 in. The palatal measurement is 12 inches, which, according to my formula, would give only 10 ft. 8 in.; but it must be remembered that I have allowed only 3 ft. for the tail, whereas such a tiger would probably have been from 3-1/2 to 4 ft., which would quite bring it up to the length vouched for. The tail of a skeleton of a much smaller tiger in the museum measures 3 ft. 3-1/2 in., which with skin and hair would certainly have been 3-1/2 ft. Until sportsmen begin to measure bodies and tails separately it will, I fear, be a difficult matter to fix on any correct formula.--R. A. S. See Appendix _C_.]

VARIETIES OF THE TIGER.--It is universally acknowledged that there is but one species of tiger. There are, however, several marked varieties. The distinction between the Central Asian and the Indian tiger is unmistakable. The coat of the Indian animal is of smooth, short hair; that of the Northern one of a deep furry pelage, of a much richer appearance.