|
Are Tigers 'Brainier' Than Lions?
|
Still the same problem, it won't sign me in for the book even though I'm signed in to the website. We've ended up Amazon troubleshooting here instead of finding the pages :s.
I HAVE IT!!! Yes, I finally have the entire chapter about the tiger of the new book of Dr Hunter. I started with that of the lion, but I still need page 205, 207 and 208. I will have it with time. By the way, I also have the first page about the leopard, the jaguar, the puma and the snow leopard!
 Well, like I said before, it seems that the source for the skull size of Panthera species is the document about Yamaguchi et al. (2009) about the cranial capacity of lions and tigers compared (I posted the entire document here in previous posts). The ranges of Greatest Skull Length (GSL) are: Lion: 26.7 - 42 mm. Tiger: 25.3 - 37.9 mm. Jaguar: 20.4 - 30.6 mm. Leopard: 17 - 28.2 mm. For reasons that I don't understand, they ignored the skull measurements of Mazák (1981 - 1983) which present a maximum figure of 383 mm. However, it is to note that the next largest tiger skulls, measured by Mazák were an Indian and an Amur specimen with a GSL of 378 mm each. I remember that @peter and Wave... once discussed that those large skulls recorded for Amur tigers (406 mm in China, 400 mm in Harbin and 383 mm in Germany) have disappeared from museum collections (probably sold to private owners) and taking in count that Yamaguchi and his team only take in count skulls measured by themselves, it seems obvious why they discard the specimen of 383 mm. However, this still don't explain why Hunter (2015) do it, as he should know that Mazák was the most accurate observer in the tiger skull department. Other problem is that no one has gone to India-Nepal to investigate the large skulls at those museums. In the Indian Museum (Calcutta) there is the report of a skull of 381 mm in GSL and in Nepal, Dr McDougall (1977) reported a skull of 381 mm in GSL. Apart from that, there are several other reports of large skulls in Cooch Behar that measured up to 400 mm, but there is no evidence about where are (or went) those specimens. Finally, Rowland Ward measured personally a large tiger skull of 384 mm in GSL, sadly its resting place is unknown. All those large Indian-Nepal tiger skulls will be unknown to modern studies until someone manage to measure and report them in a modern scientific paper. It is a shame that the only India-Nepal skulls that we know are those in the westerns museums. My doubt here is if that skull of 37.9 mm is from any of the two male tigers reported by Mazák at 378 mm or if there is a "new" specimen (let's take in count that tigers are not been "legally" hunted since the 1970). Other thing, is this an Amur or a Bengal? The document don't state it. I have saw that Yamaguchi and his team mixed captive and wild specimens, which is a shame, but at least in the case of tigers, the wild specimens reported are larger than the captive ones (based on the averages), which suggest that this large male had a wild origin. On the lion side, the skull of 42 mm could had any origin, and we most see that the captive specimens reported are larger than the wild ones. However, the commonly accepted record from a wild lion came from a specimen with a skull of 419 mm in GSL, hunted in South Africa. It was first reported in a scientific document by Hemmer in 1974, however he did not measure it personally but he quotes it from F. V. Kirby (1896; male lion with a total length of 290 cm in straight line) and was corroborated by Rowland Ward, which measure it personally. The record of 432 mm for a lion skull came only from Rowland Ward since the 4rt edition (as far I remember) and it was not measured by him, but it was a "Owner's measurements". It is reported at the Berlin Museum (which one, is not stated, as there are several museums in that city), but those that have read all the story of this skull most know that the measurements came from the hunter of this specimen, not from the Museum, and taking in count that Yamaguchi and his team went to Berlin, it seems that this large skull was: 1-Incorrectly measured by his "owner" or 2-No longer exist. The large tiger skull of 419 mm reported by Hewett is also lost, so we can see how this "giant" specimens just vanish in time with no other evidence (probably, in hand of private collectors, what a shame). As far I know, the largest jaguar skull measured 32.4 mm and came from a male in the Pantanal (De Almeida, 1990), it last location is probably with its owner and not in a museum. The skull of 30.6 mm was probably of the same area The longest leopard skull came from Persia and it is at a museum. It has been measured two times: 1st. - Kiabi et al. (2002) report it at 288 mm GSL and 181 mm in ZW, it had a picture. 2nd. Moqanaki et al. (2010) report it at 281.35 mm in GSL and 178.95 mm in ZW, it had a picture. Moqanaki et al. (2010) states that "was recently again measured precisely", which suggest that the last measurements were more accurate, although we most take in count that some shrink of the bone can happen. The skull is kept by Dr. Bahram Kiabi (Faculty of Biosciences, Shahid Beheshti University) in Tehran and is claimed as the largest leopard skull on record. However, Yamaguchi et al. (2009) did not mention any source from this area and as they studied only European museums, is possible that an equally large skull is housed in an European museum. Maybe @chui_ could give us more details on the leopard department. As far I know, no other reports of large lion or tiger skulls has been in literature, so it seems that the longest skulls for a lion and tiger, in scientific literature are of 420 mm and 383 mm respectively. @peter, you can give us more details, as you are the one that have more data on skulls. 
AMUR TIGERS
When in Chabarowsk to change for a plain for Kamsjatka, Charlie Russell met with Dr. Alexander Khulikov and Dr. Juri Dunishenko. Although he didn't provide details, I assumed they met in the Chabarowsk Natural History Museum. They showed him the collection. Russell saw a great many skulls of Amur tigers and Amur brown bears. Row after row of skulls, he wrote. They compared the skulls: " ... Although brown bear skulls were larger, the difference was limited. I never knew a cat could grow to this size ... " ('Grizzly', C. Russell, 2003, pp. 31). There also is a natural history museum in Vladivostok. It could be someone measured the skulls in these museums, but I never read anything. Just imagine: hundreds and hundreds of skulls of wild Amur tigers and not one document. They were smaller than those of brown bears, but the difference was limited. How limited, nobody knows. As far as I know, only few skulls of wild Amur tigers were measured. We have the skull in Berlin described by V. Mazak. The skull that, according to WaveRiders, disappeared. We have another skull described by J.H. Mazak in a city in northern China. Both skulls were from Manchuria. Than there's the information about the 3 tigers mentioned in the document of Graves. Two big males with short skulls. And that's about it. There's more on captive Amur tigers, but not much more. I read a thesis of a German student, now a biologist. She referred to a skull in a Munich museum exceeding 350,00 m. in condylobasal length. Than there is the Christiansen document you discussed. One of the 3 males also exceeded 350,00 mm. in condylobasal length. I measured a few in different museums and that's about it. Based on what I read, I concluded it is very likely that some skulls exceeded 390,00 mm. and possibly 400,00 mm. in greatest total length, but it's a guess only. If we add that skulls of captive animals usually are not as long as those of wild animals, the conclusion is it is very likely some skulls of male Amur tigers exceeded 400,00 mm. in greatest total length. INDIAN TIGERS I posted on the book of Hewett ('Jungle Trails in Northern India', 1938). He referred to a skull of a tiger who taped 10.2 'over curves' (half a day after he was shot by his daughter). The skull of this tiger was cleaned, weighed and measured by a professional taxidermist (Van Ingen). In greatest total length, the skull, not very wide and heavy, was 16,25 inches or 412,79 mm. The Maharajah of Cooch Behar wrote a number of skulls exceeded 15 inches in greatest total length. The longest of these was 15,75 inches or 400,05 mm. There is a letter of a hunter (Hawkins) in the JBNHS. Written after the Second World War, it proves without a shadow of doubt that some skulls of wild male Indian tigers well exceeded 15 inches, even after 1945. I know of 3 who reached or slighty exceeded 16 inches in greatest total length. I posted a photograph of the skull of the Sauraha tiger. Pocock (1929) reported on a 15-inch skull. Rowland Ward reported on skulls of Indian tigers well exceeding 15 inches. I made a table with all records I consider as reliable. Indian tigers. Sample size exceeding 100. The average is very close to 360,00 mm. in greatest total length, maybe a bit more. Yes, the table has a number of very large skulls. But it also has skulls well below 330,00 mm. The skulls were not selected for size. All skulls I saw were included. AFRICAN LIONS In contrast to tigers, there are plenty of books and articles with good information on skulls. In Kenia, according to B. Patterson ('The Lions of Tsavo', 2004, pp. 115), the longest skull (out of a series of more than 220) was 13,5 inches (342,90 mm.). Patterson wrote this was about average for an adult male lion. He didn't say what he meant, but I assumed he was talking about Africa in general. In other parts of central Africa, however, the average greatest total length for male skulls is over 14 inches (355,60 mm.) and in southern parts of Africa the average for males could be over 14,50 inches (368,30 mm.). The longest skull I know of was 419,00 mm., but it is likely that some will exceed that mark. CONCLUSIONS There's no doubt that lions have longer skulls than tigers. Same for skulls of captive animals. In every museum I visited, the longest skull was a lion skull. I have no idea about the averages of wild lions, but assume the average for all would reach or slightly exceed 14 inches (355,60 mm.). Skulls of Gir lions are a bit shorter, whereas those in southern Africa would range between 14,50 (368,30 mm.) and 14,75 inches (374,65 mm.). Exceptional skulls definitely exceed 16 inches (406,40 mm.). The longest accepted was 16,5 inches (419,10 mm.). Some skulls of wild male Amur tigers exceeded 15 inches in greatest total length. At least one (Baikov) could have been 16 inches. I have no idea about the average, because only very few were measured. There are no documents at all. We know a bit more about skulls of captive animals, but the number is limited as well. As some skulls exceeded 350,00 mm. in condylobasal length, chances are they reached 390,00-400,00 mm. in greatest total length. V. Mazak (1983) concluded old males averaged over 370,00 mm., but he most probably mixed wild and captive skulls. The longest I saw exceeded 370,00 mm. At least 3 skulls of wild Indian tigers reached or slightly exceeded 16 inches in greatest total length. There are quite many reports about skulls exceeding 15 inches. The average for many most probably ranges somewhere between 350,00-355,00 mm. in greatest total length. My guess is skulls of wild Indian tigers, although a bit shorter, could be wider and heavier than skulls of wild Amur tigers. Skulls of captive Indian tigers are shorter and relatively very wide. My guess is the average for greatest total length would be below 350,00 mm. Amur tigers have longer skulls than Indian tigers. The difference, however, is limited (10,00 mm. or a bit more). If skulls of wild male Indian tigers average 350,00-355,00 mm. in greatest total length, those of wild Amur tigers would average 360,00-365,00 mm., maybe a trifle more. Margin of error probably within 10,00 mm. If we were to construct a table, Kruger skulls most probably top the table. Although slightly shorter, skulls of Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mocambique lions could be as wide, if not wider. Amur tigers are close in size, but they wouldn't be heavier. Skulls of Indian tigers, however, could compare. In extra-large skulls, the difference between both species could be 10,00-15,00 mm. The major difference is lions do it much more often. In museums, tiger skulls exceeding 14 inches in greatest total length are rare. Lions skulls exceeding 15 inches are not. An extra problem is extra-large tiger skulls are not in museums, whereas lion skulls of 15 inches and over (I measured one slightly over 16 inches) are. I don't know why that is, but it is very likely private collectors could tell you more. It is a great pity. To conclude. The information of Dr. Hunter is, at least, incomplete. I do not doubt Yamaguchi's info is correct in itself, but correct information can be incomplete or even misleading. Especially when the one collecting is, ehhh, leaning towards a hypothesis? I wonder if he read the JBNHS. Would he and his collegues have visited museums in Russia, China, Japan, India, Vietnam, Cambodja, Thailand, Kazachstan and Azerbeidzjan? Did they try to find private collectors? If I succeeded, others surely can? All in all, regarding tigers, I would get to unsatisfactory.
Great conclusion @peter, sadly it seems that many modern scientists are against the old data, rejecting it in many cases with no hard evidence.
Yes, there are many Indian tiger skulls of up to 400 mm, even more than Amur ones, but this is caused by the size of the samples. It seems that both tiger populations (Amur and Bengal) have/had skulls of around 400 mm. I also think that private collectors do have large tiger skulls in they collections, but they are lost for scientific purposes. 
I've seen some Japanese private collector/taxidermist got those 400 mm Amur/Indian skulls, and I will post it later.
 (10-13-2015, 08:52 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I've seen some Japanese private collector/taxidermist got those 400 mm Amur/Indian skulls, and I will post it later. Can you contact them? If so, you can tell 'm I would be interested to measure and photograph them? The results will be posted on our forum. I would also be willing to write an article. This would result in a lot of attention. Information about large skulls should be in the public domain. Ownership is something different. I would be willing to fly to Japan soon. Same for the natural history museums in Chabarowsk and Vladivostok. I would be willing to go there and do the work. Now.
I saw those skulls in a blog of a Japanese taxidermist, and I don't how to contact him, and I am also not sure whether he can communicate with English.
I will post the pics and his blog first.
He claims these two skulls, Amur and Bengal respectively, measure about 40 cm.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Here is his blog and his taxidermy website.
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/chuuken1/folder/373432.html?m=lc&p=48 http://www.chuuken1.com/japan/tou-gu-skull/
His Amur skull and lion skull, and I think I've posted this pic before in the AVA forum.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
More interesting stuffs from his blog.
Male Bengal tiger with super long fangs.  *This image is copyright of its original author Some 40+ cm massive male lion skull.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(10-14-2015, 12:00 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: He claims these two skulls, Amur and Bengal respectively, measure about 40 cm. On my screen, the Amur skull is three units longer, whereas the Bengal skull is almost three wider. The rostrum is wider and the upper canines are more massive in the skull of the Amur tiger. Sagittal crest straight and maxillary bone longer and a bit flatter. If the Amur skull really is close to 16 inches in greatest total length, the Bengal skull is close to 15. The main differences between the Amur and the lion skull is in the shape of the mandibula (straight with the tip slightly downward in the tiger and a bit convex with the tip upward in the lion), the rostrum (wider and more massive in the tiger), the upper canines (longer and more massive in the tiger), and the pm4 (longer in the lion). Profile of the lion flatter and, most probably (I didn't see the skull from above), a bit more robust in the center. The lion skull seems to be a bit longer (maxillary bone more extended). Same for the mandibula. Tiger skulls of this size are not in museums. Those who measure skulls know about private collectors. They also know many museums have not been visited by biologists. If they, in spite of that, maintain that the longest lion skulls are about 40,00 mm. longer than the longest tiger skulls, the conclusion is they are misinforming the public. Good find, Grizzly. See if you can find more.
There is a contact information on his website, but unfortunately there is nobody here who can speak Japanese.
@peter, do you know any friend who can speak Japanese? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |