Bati—Tdentification of the Animals and Plants of India. 311 
name records the fact that it was a man-eater (Persian Mard-khor in 
its archaic form), and this characteristic is also expressly stated by 
Ktesias. It was hunted by the natives, from the backs of elephants. 
Although it has been suggested by some commentators that it was the 
tiger, none of them appear to have seen how the several statements 
can be shown to be founded on actual facts. Pausanius, for instancc, 
attributes these details to the imagination of the Indians, excited by 
dread of the animal. Others appear to be unwilling to regard the 
animal as being capable of identification. Thus Lassen, referring to 
Ktesias’s assertion, that he had seen one of these animals with the 
Persian monarch, to whom it had been presented by the Indian king, 
asserts that ‘he cannot, in this instance, be acquitted of men- 
dacity.”’ 1" 
Among facts not generally known, though mentioned in some 
works on Zoology, is one which I can state from my own personal 
knowledge is familiar to Indian Shikaris—it is that at the extremity 
of the tail of the tiger, as well as of other felida, there is a little horny 
dermal structure like a claw or nail, which, I doubt not, the natives 
regard as analogous to the sting of the scorpion. Moreover, the whis- 
kers of the tiger are by many natives regarded as capable of causing 
injury ; and sportsmen know, where this is the case, that the skins of 
their slaughtered tigers are liable to be injured by the plucking out or 
burning off the whiskers—to avert accidents. The idea of the three 
rows of teeth probably had its origin in the three lobes of the carnivo- 
rous molar, which is of such a different type from the molars of 
ruminants and horses. The Martikhora was, therefore, I believe, the 
tiger, and the account of it embodies actual facts, though they were 
somewhat distorted in the telling. 
It may be said that it would: not be difficult to present an account 
of the tiger derived from the attributes and characteristics ascribed to 
the animal at the present day by the natives, which would have a far 
less substantial basis of fact than has the one given to us by Ktesias. 
Aristotle gives an account of this animal, which account, he states, 
was taken from Ktesias." 
Megasthenes, according to Strabo, states with reference to tigers, 
that the largest are found among the Prasii (Sansk., Prachyas, i.e. 
Easterns), being nearly twice the size of the lion, and so strong that a 
tame tiger, led by four men, having seized a mule by one of the hind 
legs, overpowered it and dragged it to him.’ Not a very remarkable 
performance, the Indian sportsman will remark, who knows what a 
tiger can do in the way of dragging heavy oxen for long distances over 
obstacles. 
“ Ancient India, by J. W. M‘Crindle, p. 77. 
18 De Hist. Anim., ii. 1. Vide postea, p. 346. 
19 Geographica, xv. i. 37. Of. Megasthenes, by J. W. M‘Crindle, p. 66. 
R.1.A. PROC., VOL. Il. SER. I1.—POL. LIT. AND ANTIQ. 2N 
