lO 



NATURE 



\_Nov. 7, 1878 



seldom less than 10 feet in length. I speak of hunting- 

 grounds frequented by myself (chiefly Oude and Nepal 

 Terai), for no doubt the size varies according to locality, 

 abundance of food, and its reverse must of course pro- 

 duce their usual results." 



Col. Sleeman, Bengal army, says: — "I don't remem- 

 ber having killed a tiger measuring more than 10 feet 

 6 inches in his skin, but I have seen skins of tigers 

 II feet 6 inches in length, and once, at Dinagepore, in 

 Bengal, over 12 feet. I have the skin of the largest 

 tiger I think I ever saw, and it measures 12 feet 2 inches. 

 This tiger was killed near Jubbulpore, in Central India, 

 by an old Thakoor sixty years of age, and I preserve the 

 skin as a trophy of native pluck and vigour in age." 



The skins above alluded to were, no doubt, stretched, 

 and therefore do not prove more than that they were 

 taken from large animals, which may have been probably 

 between 10 and 1 1 feet in length ! 



Col. J. Macdonald, Bengal army. Revenue Survey, 

 says: — "The largest tiger I have ever measured out of 

 seventy was 10 feet 4 inches, and out of all these only 

 three have touched 10 feet. But I do believe that tigers 

 have exceptionally reached 12 feet." "The skin of 

 a tiger ten feet in length, as he lies dead, would stretch 

 to nearly twelve feet, but after curing it returns to nearly 

 its normal size. I have often measured the distance 

 between a tiger's marks on the ground; average and 

 large animals are from 4 feet 4 inches to 4 feet 8 inches ; 

 well ! I once found marks 5 feet 10 inches apart, this 

 must have been the mark of a gigantic beast — the breadth 

 of the impression of the fore paw, and the depth of the 

 impression, showed his great size and weight. This was 

 in the Sunderbunds. Mr, M., of Morel-Gunge, told me 

 that once when going through a narrow creek in the 

 Sunderbunds, he saw a stupendous brute, far exceeding 

 in size anything he had before seen in tigers or could 

 have believed possible. The heaviest male tiger I have 

 seen weighed 448 lbs., the lightest, a tigress, 242 lbs." 



The Hon. R. Drummond, B.C.S., late Commissioner, 

 Rohilkund, says : — 



"I have never seen a 12-foot tiger. The largest I ever 

 shot was 1 1 feet 9 inches as he lay on the ground imme- 

 diately he was shot, and before being padded. I mea- 

 sured him because I was struck with his large size." 



F. B.Simson, Esq., B.C.S., says :— " I have killed or been 

 at the death of about 180 tigers ; I never actually handled 

 one II feet long, but I fully believe that they reach that 

 length occasionally, and every now and then a monster 

 is found. The largest skins by far I have seen, came 

 from China. I give you the exact measurements of 

 several I have killed and fairly measured immediately 

 after death, and before they were padded with dates : — 



"All these were killed on the churs of the Megna, 

 between Backergunge and Noakhally. In later years I 

 killed tigers in Purneah, Docca, Mymensingh, and Assam, 

 but their exact dimensions were not recorded. I do not 

 ■■emember any exceeding generally in size the measure- 

 'nents I have given. I once killed a tiger which stood 

 almost 4 feet at the shoulder. 



"I have often been referred to about hogs. I have 

 taken about 900 first spears, and hunted in nearly every 



zillah in Bengal, but I never speared the boar that Avould 

 not have walked under a standard of 3 feet 3 inches. 

 This statement has disappointed many; but the facts are 

 at your service, and you may use my name to authenti- 

 cate them when you choose." 



Major-General Sir H. Green, K.C.S.I., C.B., Bombay, 

 says : — " The biggest tiger I was ever at the killing of 

 was in 1848, near Surat, and it ms3i%\xxe.A, pegged out, 

 12 feet 4 inciies. I heard by last mail from Claude Clerk 

 at Hyderabad, who said he had just killed, to his own 

 gun, the biggest tiger he had ever seen, as it measured 

 II feet 6 inches before skinning." 



Sir H. Green also writes : — " I inclose a letter from 

 Col. Stewart regarding tigers, and I have made many 

 inquiries about them since, and there can be no doubt 

 that a 12-foot tiger is very rare, although I have no 

 doubt there are instances of that size having been ex- 

 ceeded. I find, by reference to my journal, that I have 

 a record of some I have killed, and that the one I men- 

 tioned as 12 feet 4 inches, pegged out, measured, before 

 skinning, 11 feet 11 inches. Measures before skinning : — 



II feet II inches. 



10 

 9 

 9 

 9 



8 



Col. 

 heard 



II 



9 

 6 



3 

 6 



G. 



. — Ti^^res*:. 



,, . — Tigress; pulled down my elephant." 



Stewart writes : — " I hare never seen 

 tiger. 



D. 



of a bona fide 12-foot tiger, i.e., as he lay in 

 his skin. The largest I ever saw or killed was, as he lay, 

 1 1 feet and \ inch. I have personally measured eighty 

 tigers or more of my own shooting, and the dimensions I 

 have given are those of the largest of my victims. I 

 saw a skin in San Francisco, of a Chinese tiger, which might 

 have been 12 feet long in life. I never saw anything 

 Indian to approach it. The Chinese skin was fairly 

 treated, had breadth as well as length, the fur was long 

 and soft. The average size of large males in the Central 

 Provinces I found to be 10 feet 6 inches to 10 feet 



8 inches ; the tail had a good deal to do with the last two 

 or three inches. The largest tigress I killed was, I think, 



9 feet 3 or 4 inches, but I speak from memory. Of two 

 males the girth of the fore-arm of one was 48 inches, the 

 average being 32 to 34 inches. One of the most remark- 

 able measurements is that of the tail where it joins the 

 carcass. I have repeatedly found it in males 12 inches."' 



The Hon. Sir H. Ramsay, K.C.S.I., C.B., Commissioner, 

 Kumaon, writes : " I have always understood that Bengal 

 tigers are larger than ours in the north-west. The largest 

 tiger I ever killed measured 10 feet 5 inches, and I consider 

 anything above 10 feet a large tiger ; a tigress very seldom 

 gets beyond 9 feet. I have heard of Bengal tigers measur - 

 ing 12 feet. G. tells me his father, a Bengal civilian, shot 

 a tiger that measured 12 feet 4 inches, but I never shot in 

 Bengal." 



Mr. C. Shillingford, indigo-planter, Purneah (with 

 whom I have shot many tigers) says : " My experience 

 extends over thirty-five years, during which I have shot 

 more than 200 tigers. In 1849 I shot one of the largest 

 tigers I have ever seen, with a party of four. He 

 measured, as he fell, 12 feet 4 inches, was very old, and 

 his marks had become faint ; the hair was short, like that 

 of a greyhound. I shot another tiger which measured, as 

 he fell II feet 10 inches, and another in 1855, 11 feet 

 4 inches ; several of 10 feet 6 inches and 10 feet. The 

 majority of male tigers seldom exceed 10 feet, and many 

 attain only 9 feet 8 inches or 9 feet 10 inches." 



Gumming says he has shot a few over 1 1 feet, and gives 

 three instances— one at Rohinipore, 1 1 feet 4 inches : one 

 at Kaliastrich in 1865, of 11 feet 2 inches; and another 

 at Gour in 1871. My nephew has also shot one or two 

 over II feet. 



I think these very large tigers are rare, and are only to be 

 found in the Ganges churs ; I am also inclined to believe 



