FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192  
193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   >>   >|  
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------- Remarks: Mr. Shillingford'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. Shillingford'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 circumstances. 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 illustration given by Mr. Shillingford 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 f
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192  
193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Southern

 

Shillingford

 

Maharajah

 
Bengal
 

Central

 
giving
 

museum

 

understood

 

eleven

 
plains

country

 

length

 

greater

 

called

 

measurement

 

Locality

 

largest

 
hostile
 
criticism
 
compares

Purneah

 

Length

 
Indian
 

robust

 

proportion

 

enormous

 

creature

 
letters
 

purposes

 

illustration


heavier

 

animal

 

hesitation

 

obliterated

 

completely

 

specimens

 

inches

 
parietal
 

sutures

 
appearance

measured

 

ground

 

writes

 

Remarks

 

considerably

 

calculation

 

remembered

 

portion

 

standard

 

selecting