|
Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws
|
 (12-17-2016, 01:47 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: That's why the variation of the big cat canine teeth is simply mind boggling. In the skulls I measured, individual differences were limited. This regarding greatest total length, zygomatic width and upper canine length. In terms of weight, however, even small differences can have a significant result. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to assess the size of a skull with an upper canine only. There are too many factors to consider and the impact of each is difficult to assess. Let's take Sumatra as an example. Sumatran tiger skulls, in contrast to Javan tiger skulls, show a lot of individual variation. Some male skulls hardly exceed 280 mm. in greatest total length, whereas others reach 340 mm. or slightly over. If a long skull also is more robust than a small skull, it can be can be twice as heavy. A long and heavy upper canine usually belongs to a large and robust skull, but there are many exceptions. Two adult wild male Amur tigers collected by Mordon and Graves (1930) were 480 and 550 pounds (V. Mazak, 1983, pp. 188). Both were heavier than the heaviest captured today, that is. Their skulls, however, were shorter than the skull of a captive male Sumatran tiger most probably about half their weight (Pocock, 1929). This although the average difference between both tiger subspecies (adult males) is about 2 inches in greatest total length. Biologists today often reject data they didn't collect themselves. Like WaveRiders, most of them dismiss records of extra-large tigers. The result is they often underestimate the size of wild male tigers (referring to India and Nepal). How often have we read a tiger 'bottomed' a scale of 500 or even 600 pounds? Although they were proven wrong time and again, I can understand their scepticism. One reason is extra large tiger skulls and skeletons are never seen in natural history museums. Even a skull of 14,5 inches (368,3 mm.) is quite something today. Same for most private collections I saw. When you've visited enough museums, you might start to wonder about these extra-large skulls described in letters of hunters to magazins. Same for records mentioned in obscure old books. I do not doubt that some tigers shot 100-150 years ago really were exceptional in every way. The old boy I met in a museum many years ago was a hunter in what was then British India. He told me tigers of 10.6 and over in total length measured in a straight line have been shot. He saw them himself and also told me the records in the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar were true and not exceptional in any way. This means that some tigers shot in that period (1870-1910 roughly) in northeastern India really well exceeded 15 inches in greatest total length. In his opinion, the longest tiger skulls exceed 16 inches. I didn't doubt him for a second, but asked him about the details. Royalty and extra wealthy private collectors in both the east (Japan and China) and the west (UK, USA, Canada and a few countries in South America), he said. Continue the good work and they might find you, he told me. One more remark on these extra large skulls. I saw photographs of them. Most were from China, but Japan also featured. Based on my experience, I'd say most of them ranged between 15-16 inches in greatest total length. I believe the old man who told me the longest could be just over that mark (16 inches). If these skulls are proportionally as robust as an average skull, some of them would produce upper canines over 150 gr. Here's a few pictures of large Amur tiger skulls (both China, I think). Watch the relation between robustness and size in the second:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is from the paper I wrote about tiger evolution. I found the pictures on AVA:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's the skull of the Sauraha tiger (Royal Chitwan, nepal) again. Not in a natural history museum as well:  *This image is copyright of its original author Compare the upper canines to the upper canines in Amur tiger skulls. The conclusion is the upper canines in Amur tiger skulls often are bigger. This although Indian tigers often have more robust skulls. This is Snarl from India. Younger, longer and taller, he drove Arjuna out. Arjuna died a few weeks after the fight, because he wasn't able to hunt anymore. Snarl was still quite young when he beat Arjuna. He could have gained a lot more weight in the years to come, but met an old male estimated at 550 pounds or over by experts not long after his figh with Arjuna and was never seen again. Snarl was known for his temper and had very long canines. Here he is only a day after the fight with Arjuna:  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 18 Guest(s) |