698 



ON THE ORIGINAL HOME OF THE TIGER. 

 By Col. C. E. Stewart, c.b., c.m.g., c.i.e. 



The ordinary idea of English people that the tiger was originally an Indian 

 animal, is, I believe, quite a mistake. After careful enquiry, I have come to 

 the conclusion that the tiger is a comparatively late intruder into India. 



Firstly, after enquiry, I can discover no Sanscrit word for the tiger. If 

 tigers had existed in India in the days when Sanscrit was a spoken language, 

 there would be a name in Sanscrit for it, while there is only a modern Hindus- 

 tani name. There is a Sanscrit word for lion, " Singha," which would point 

 to the fact that lions wer« certainly more common than tigers in time long past. 

 At present lions are not found in India, except a very few, which are strictly 

 preserved in Goojerat, one extreme corner of India, though I will allow that 

 lions were probably commoner than they are now in the olden time, though 

 probably never very numerous. 



I remember, when I first went to India, nearly 50 years ago, a lion being 

 killed not very far to the southward of Allahabad, but this was even then a 

 rare occurrence. I have studied the question of the habitat of lions and tigers 

 in Persia, where I resided for a good many years. Lions are found only in 

 the very south of Persia, near the Persian Gulf, and Arabia ; while tigers are 

 only seen in the very north of Persia, near the Russian border, and especially 

 near the Caspian Sea, on the north of Persia, and they are more numerous 

 within British territory than within the Persian boundary, and tigers are more 

 common in southern Siberia than they are anywhere in Persia. 



Tigers are more numerous in cold countries. They are plentiful in Corea, 

 which has a severe winter climate, and still more plentiful in the Island of 

 Saghalion, belonging to Russia, and further north than Corea, and which has 

 almost an arctic climate in winter. The tiger is mentioned by Marco Polo in 

 his travels, but nowhere as an Indian animal, and I very much doubt whether 

 tigers were found in India at the time Marco Polo visited it. 



In the Sanscrit works, treating of the fighting between Rama and Rawun, 

 the Demon King of Ceylon, though many animals are mentioned, such as bears, 

 monkeys, and several others, I have been unable to find any mention of the 

 tiger ; and the tiger is not found in the Island of Ceylon, though the leopard 

 is ; nor is the tiger found in the larger Island of Borneo, which would seem 

 to point to its only inhabiting the Islands of the Indian Archipelago, which it 

 could reach by swimming. Thus it would seem that tigers did not exist in 

 India before the time that Ceylon was separated from India. Tigers did not 

 exist in the Island of Singapore until about 1809, when apparently they swam 

 over from the mainland. Tigers are such good swimmers that they can cross 

 a considerable body of water. I do not think any allusion to tigers in India 

 can be found in the Greek historians. I should feel much obliged if anyone 

 coidd fin \ me such a reference. 



In the mo.mmonts of the Assyrian Kings, and of the Kings of Persia, there 

 are constant references to lion-hunts by those kings, but never allusion to a 



