Nov. 7, 1878] 



NATURE 



and temperature, this relation does not hold for the 

 yearly means ; that is to say, it does not follow that a 

 high yearly mean pressure should indicate a low yearly 

 mean temperature, and vice versa. 



We may, however, arrive at a satisfactory answer to 

 the original question by an examination of the variations 

 of yearly mean temperature at the different stations. It 

 inust be remembered that the relation of the oscillations 

 of monthly mean pressure to those of monthly mean 

 temperature are deduced from the variations shown by a 

 thermometer four or five feet from the ground. Does 

 the thermometer at any station, or at a combination of 

 stations, show a high yearly mean temperature with a 

 low yearly mean pressure, and -vice versa ? I have given 

 the variations of yearly mean temperature (AT) at differ- 

 ent stations, and it requires only a cursory examination 

 of them to see that there is no such relation. There is, 

 however, another fact of \'ery great importance to be 

 deduced from the values of AT, and that is, the very 

 £reat constancy of the yearly mean temperature at all the 

 stations, in spite of the known considerable variations in 

 the amount of rain and of other meteorological results 

 from year to year. 



It may be asked how we can explain the facts which 

 seem to relate the annual oscillations of the mean pres- 

 sure and mean temperature with the independence of the 

 variations of the yearly means. As an illustration we 

 can suppose that with a strong wind and high tempe- 

 rature the height of the tide maybe increased at a certain 

 port, while a following north wind with low temperatures 

 will diminish the height at low water ; we should in such 

 a case, especially if the temperature varied with the force 

 of the wind, have a larger oscillation of the water with a 

 larger oscillation of temperature : we would not, however, 

 attribute the high tide to the greater heat ; we can also 

 conceive that the mean temperature might, in the case 

 supposed, vary, but the level of the ocean avouM remain 

 constant. Other illustrations might be suggested. 



The conclusions at which I have arrived are : — 



1. That the years of greatest and least mean baro- 

 metric pressure are probably the same for all India. 



2. Therefore, that the apparent relation to the decen- 

 nial period found by Mr. C. Chambers for Bombay holds 

 for all India, 



3. That the annual oscillations of monthly mean 

 pressure and monthly mean temperature have nearly a 

 constant ratio in India. 



4. That these oscillations depend on local conditions 

 in the same latitude, at places quite near each other, 

 which are independent of the heat emitted by the sun. 



5. That the yearly mean isobars run parallel to the 

 «quator in India and are independent of local conditions. 



6. That the directions of the yearly mean isotherms 

 vary with the local conditions. 



7. That there is no relation between the variations of 

 yearly mean temperature and yearly mean pressure. 



John Allan Broun 



THE SIZE OF THE TIGER 



TN a work on the tiger, published in 1875,^ I made the 

 '■■ following remarks in reference to the size of the 

 animal : — 



" The size of the tiger varies : some individuals attain 

 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, 

 ▼hen it maybe 10 or 12 inches longer than before 

 removal from the body. The tiger should he measured 

 from the nose along the spine to the tip of the tail as he 



* Royal Tiger of Bengal, pp. 29, 30, 



lies dead on the spot ivhere he fell before the skin is re- 

 moved. One that is 10 feet by this measuremetit is large, 

 and the full-grown inale does not often exceed this, though 

 no doubt larger individuals (males) are occasionally seen, 

 and I have been informed by Indian sportsmen of reli- 

 ability 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 1 1 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 has 

 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 Jerdon 

 remarks 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 9^ or 10 and 2 or 3 inches 

 are the lengths attained by the majority of tigers met 

 \vith ; 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, 11 

 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 cne pro- 

 vince or district may exceed those of another in size. 

 Indeed I am inclined to believe that such is the case, 

 and that therefore those who contend for the larger may 

 be equally right with those who maintain the smaller 

 measurements. I am rather inclined to agree with Mr, 

 C. Shillingford, who suggests the possible progressive 

 degeneration of the tiger ; what, certainly, according to 

 some, obtains in the case of stags in the continuously 

 over-shot deer forests of Scotland, may also be going on 

 in the tiger of the much-hunted jungles of India. How- 

 ever this is a mere suggestion, but_be it as it may, the 

 inches of the big tiger are, I think, an ascertained fact, 

 for it can hardly be maintained that the authorities who 

 vouch for it are either mistaken or misinformed, or that 

 they do not know how to measure a tiger accurately. 



Sir G. Yule, K.C.S.I., Bengal Civil Service, says : 

 " I never had the luck to fall in with a 12-foot tiger ; 

 II feet odd inches I have killed twice or thrice. I 

 have heard once, at least, of a 12-foot fellow fairly 

 measured, and I cannot see why there should be any 

 doubt as to the occasional occurrence of such exceptions 

 to the general rule." 



Col. George Boileau, Bengal army, says he killed a 

 tiger at Mutearah, in Oude, that was well over 12 

 feet. He writes : — " I can speak positively as to the 

 size of the tiger — his length was well over 12 feet 

 before the skin was removed. He was, of course, quite 

 an exceptional size, and unequalled, so far as my own 

 experience goes, which extended over seventeen years at 

 constant hunting after the species. ?vly own experience 

 of the [size of tigers is that, in the female, the size runs 

 from 8 feet to 9^ feet— the latter exceptionally large ; in the 

 male, from 9 feet to 1 1 feet ; a well-grown adult tiger is 



