Size of the tiger / J. Fayrer.

  • Fayrer, Joseph, Sir, 1824-1907.
Date:
[1878]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Size of the tiger / J. Fayrer. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    1/18 (page 237)
    XATVItE W-j.isyS SIZE OF THE TIGER IN a work on the tiger, published in 1875,* I made th©< following remarks in reference to the size of the animal * Royal Tiger of Bengal, pp. 29, 30. “ The size of the tiger varies : some individuals a*ta?n, great bulk and weight, though they are shorter than others which are of a slighter and more elongated form. The statements as to the length they attain are conflicting and often exaggerated; errors are apt to arise from measurements taken from the skin after it is stretched, when it may be 10 or 12 inches longer than before removal from the body. The tiger should be measured from the nose along the spine to the tip of the tail as hi lies dead on the spot where he fell before the skin is re° moved. One that is 10 feet by this 7neasurement is large% a id the full-grown male does not often exceed this, though no doubt larger individuals (males) are occasionally seer, and I have been informed by Indian sportsmen of relia- bility that they have seen and killed tigers over 12 feet in length. The full-grown male Indian tiger, there- fore, may be said to be from 9 to 12 feet or 12 feet 2 inches, the tigress from 8 to 10 or perhaps in very rare instances 11 feet in length, the height being from 3 to 3^, or, rarely, 4 feet at the shoulder.’ ’ The point I now especially desire to elucidate as it ha# been the subject of discussion, but is one that has never yet been satisfactorily settled, is the greatest length the tiger attains. Jerdon and others say that the average size of a full- grown male tiger is from 9 to 9^ feet in length, and that he has not seen any authentic account of a tiger that measured more than 10 feet and 2 or 3 inches. I agree with Jerdon that 9 to 9J or 10 and 2 or 3 inches are the lengths attained by the majority of tigers met with ; but the occasional occurrence of tigers of upwards of 10 feet 2 or 3 inches (the authenticity of which is doubted) is attested by the evidence of several competent and reliable observers, who are quite aware that the measurements should be those of the animal as he lies where he fell, and before being despoiled of his skin, and that measurements of the skin after removal are decep® tive. I have taken some pains to ascertain the views of those who are most likely to be well informed on the subject, and I add the results of my own observations during considerable experience in Bengal, Oude, and Nepal; it would seem that the evidence wanted by Jerdon is forth? coming, and that tigers above 10 feet 3 inches, if feet, and even 12 feet, are occasionally met with, and have been accurately measured. I may remark that it is very possible that like boars, and other animals, they may differ in size according to locality, food, and other conditions of life; and that such being the case, it is probable that tigers of one pro- vince or district may exceed those of another in size,