163° : MAMMALIA OF INDIA. 
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 ature, June 27, 1878, brings forwara 
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 Kumaon a tiger measuring 
mer teet, 
Sir Joseph Fayrer has seen and killed tigers over 1o feet, and one in 
Purneah io 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 g inches, 
measured before being skinned. 
Colonel Shakespeare killed one 11 feet 8 inches. 
However, conceding that all this proves that tigers do reach occasion- 
ally 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.* 
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. 
There is an idea which is also to be found stated as a fact in some 
works, on natural history, that the Northern tiger is of a pale colour 
with few stripes, which arises from Swinhoe having so described some 
specimens .from Northern China; but I have not found this to be 
confirmed in those skins from Central Asia which I have seen. Shortly 
before leaving London, in 1878, Mr. Charles Reuss, furrier, in Bond 
* Since writing the above I have to thank ‘‘ Meade Shell” for the measurements 
of the skull of a tiger 11 ft. 6in. 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} 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. 33 in., which 
with skin and hair would certainly have been 3} 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, 
