(12-29-2017, 09:20 AM)Garfield Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 04:14 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 03:46 AM)Garfield Wrote: Hey bros whatup, yeah was talkin to a dude on here, an he talked to a zoologist an they said lions gut the thicker teeth tiger longer.  So I mean like that pics an all but ya need some experts to do the real assessin.  Cuz otherwise were all just speculating pics, right?

Many zoologists are not interested to make a difference between the morphological difference of the big cat teeth.

Here is a perfect example, since they can also be mistaken by the counterfeit product.

I dont no bro, I just have this, but its legit zoologist guy from what I heard where they got it from. 

Zoologist quote

"We became aware of lions teeth being approx 1.5 cm shorter but 1cm thicker at base, while performing health studies on possible inbreeding effects due to small number density in tigers and lions.
During this 5 year period of research back in 91, we fortunately detected little in the way of inbred genetics which has so destroyed the captive white tiger.
So, we obviously paid great attention to teeth and rear leg development during our research.
The teeth of lions are broader across the 40 samplings in comparison with the longer teeth of the tiger across 17 samplings of adults."

So I mean thats legit guys, he would know more than us, Ill bet dollars to doughnuts thats correct info.

(12-29-2017, 09:20 AM)Garfield Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 04:14 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 03:46 AM)Garfield Wrote: Hey bros whatup, yeah was talkin to a dude on here, an he talked to a zoologist an they said lions gut the thicker teeth tiger longer.  So I mean like that pics an all but ya need some experts to do the real assessin.  Cuz otherwise were all just speculating pics, right?

Many zoologists are not interested to make a difference between the morphological difference of the big cat teeth.

Here is a perfect example, since they can also be mistaken by the counterfeit product.

I dont no bro, I just have this, but its legit zoologist guy from what I heard where they got it from. 

Zoologist quote

"We became aware of lions teeth being approx 1.5 cm shorter but 1cm thicker at base, while performing health studies on possible inbreeding effects due to small number density in tigers and lions.
During this 5 year period of research back in 91, we fortunately detected little in the way of inbred genetics which has so destroyed the captive white tiger.
So, we obviously paid great attention to teeth and rear leg development during our research.
The teeth of lions are broader across the 40 samplings in comparison with the longer teeth of the tiger across 17 samplings of adults."

So I mean thats legit guys, he would know more than us, Ill bet dollars to doughnuts thats correct info.

(12-29-2017, 10:06 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Actually, tiger's narrower nasal structure has left more room for their canine root, that's why the tiger canines often have broader root.

(12-29-2017, 10:09 AM)Garfield Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 10:06 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Actually, tiger's narrower nasal structure has left more room for their canine root, that's why the tiger canines often have broader root.

Hey man, i'll trust the zoologist who has actually studied these dudes for real.  40 samplings, thats enough fo me. Why would he lie?

Not sure what university he went to, cuz I don't have the actual site it came from, think it was a letter to someone, but I can ask the bro
who got it.  I believe it Leeds University or something.

(12-29-2017, 10:26 AM)paul cooper Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 10:09 AM)Garfield Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 10:06 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Actually, tiger's narrower nasal structure has left more room for their canine root, that's why the tiger canines often have broader root.

Hey man, i'll trust the zoologist who has actually studied these dudes for real.  40 samplings, thats enough fo me. Why would he lie?

Not sure what university he went to, cuz I don't have the actual site it came from, think it was a letter to someone, but I can ask the bro
who got it.  I believe it Leeds University or something.

Show me the zoologist idiot.

(12-29-2017, 12:03 PM)Garfield Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 10:26 AM)paul cooper Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 10:09 AM)Garfield Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 10:06 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Actually, tiger's narrower nasal structure has left more room for their canine root, that's why the tiger canines often have broader root.

Hey man, i'll trust the zoologist who has actually studied these dudes for real.  40 samplings, thats enough fo me. Why would he lie?

Not sure what university he went to, cuz I don't have the actual site it came from, think it was a letter to someone, but I can ask the bro
who got it.  I believe it Leeds University or something.

Show me the zoologist idiot.

Hey bud watch your language, this is a nice site I thought, no name callin, the zoologist is legit bro dont have a site it was a letter and answering questions to someone online dont know the original site.  I can ask a bro tommorow where he got it from.  U gut a relax man, you still seem uptight, sit back a little you still seem to have this weird tiger superior fixiation on everything.  Bro both cats have advantages man, one ain't superior over the other they both are fit for their place as the king.  But they have to settle the score in a no holds bar, to find out.  Lions have advantages man, not every advantage goes to the tiger like you think.

(12-29-2017, 03:46 AM)Garfield Wrote: Hey bros whatup, yeah was talkin to a dude on here, an he talked to a zoologist an they said lions gut the thicker teeth tiger longer.  So I mean like that pics an all but ya need some experts to do the real assessin.  Cuz otherwise were all just speculating pics, right?

(12-29-2017, 04:57 PM)peter Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 03:46 AM)Garfield Wrote: Hey bros whatup, yeah was talkin to a dude on here, an he talked to a zoologist an they said lions gut the thicker teeth tiger longer.  So I mean like that pics an all but ya need some experts to do the real assessin.  Cuz otherwise were all just speculating pics, right?

In the last 15 years or so, I visited a number of museums in the Netherlands and Germany to measure big cat skulls. I also saw the collection of a few private collectors. All in all, I measured over 350 skulls. Most of these were lion and tiger skulls. Apart from that, I have detailed information about a few dozen skulls carefully measured by others. Watch the word 'detailed'.

The Dutch, as you know, had colonies in the past. Indonesia was one of them. For this reason, you'll find a lot of skulls of tigers from Java and Sumatra in Dutch museums. I also saw skulls from Bali. Sunda tigers, as you know, are smaller than tigers from Mainland Asia. A big wild male Sumatran tiger might reach 330 pounds, but most don't get even close to that mark. My guess is that an average male is 115-120 kg. (255-266 pounds), maybe a bit more. In total length, a male tiger from Sumatra, measured in a straight line, is about 236-237 cm., say 7 feet and 9 inches for now. 

I didn't finish the tables yet, but the greatest total length of the skull of wild adult male from Sumatra is about 310,00-315,00 mm. (average). At that length, the length of the upper canines ranges between 50,00-65,00 mm. The longest I saw were 71,00 mm. At the insertion, measured from front to back, they ranged between 23,00-27,00 mm. The upper canines of wild male tigers from Java are longer and heavier, but in relatives the difference is slightly in favour of the Sumatrans.

Wild male lions range between 255,00 - 305,00 cm. in total length. The longest could be Kruger lions. Wild adult males could average 270,00-275,00 cm. and 400-440 pounds. I propose 9 feet and 420 pounds for now. In greatest total skull length, they range between 330,00-400,00 mm. (up to 408,00 for a male from what's now Ethiopia). Anything know about the upper canines? Not from Kruger, but the upper canines of the male skulls I measured ranged between 52,00-67,00 mm. At the insertion in the upper jaw, measured from front to back, they ranged between 24,50-29,10 mm. 

If I was forced to get to a conclusion right now, I'd say the difference between wild male Sumatran tigers and wild male Afrian lions in the upper canine department (length and width at the insertion in the upper jaw) is close to zilch. This although wild male African lions are longer, heavier and bigger-skulled. As to a comparison between wild male African lions and wild male tigers from Mainland Asia. I leave that one to you. 

Anything on captive big cats? Yes. In the upper canine department, compared to their wild relatives, they are mere parodies. The things I saw in wild male adult big cats, however, are more or less similar. I have 8 big files loaded with measurements and photographs. When I opened the first, I found an example I would consider as typical. 

In the blue corner, at my left, is a captive male lion from a Dutch facility. He was a big as they come. When he perished, he was measured by Dr. P. van Bree, an undisputed authority on big cats and skulls. Measured in a straight line, the lion was 216,7 cm. in head and body. If we add the tail, 84,00 cm., we get to a total of 300,7 cm. Very long, that is. The giant was weighed in a facility where all captive big cats were weighed in those days. He was 280,00 kg. (618 pounds). I measured his skull in 2004. Twice, to be sure. Greatest total length: 378,00 mm. Condylobasal length 326,00 mm. Zygomatic width: 248,00 mm. Upper canine length: 67,00 mm. Width at the inserttion in the upper jaw: 28,00 mm. Weight of the skull (not defatted): 2,450 kg.  

In the red corner, at my right, is a captive adult male Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris). He died in 1978 in a well-known Dutch zoo and he too didn't escape the attention of Dr. P. van Bree. Head and body length: 174,00 cm. Tail: 89,50 cm. Total length: 263,50 cm. (just under 8 feet 8 inches). Weight: 104 kg. (230 pounds). Greatest total length of the skull: 348,00 mm. Condylobasal length: 311,60 mm. Zygomatic width: 242,20 mm. Upper canine length: broken. Width of the upper canines at the insertion of the upper jaw: 29,10 mm. Weight of the skull: 1,390 kg.

Compared to the giant male lion, the captive male Indian tiger was a joke in all respects. Dr. P. van Bree saw him many times. He told me the tiger had been small and in bad shape all his life. But his upper canines were as big as they come. I have much more examples of smallish tiger skulls with big canines and they would not be a result of selection. I'm not saying that an average captive male lion doesn't compare to an average captive male tiger (he most certainly does). I'm also not saying that a male lion doesn't compare in the upper canine department (he most certainly does). In relatives, however, a captive male tiger, regarding the upper canines, has an advantrage in length, width and weight. If we add large male tigers from Mainland Asia (referring to Indian and Amur tigers), the difference often is significant.

To conclude. Captive male lions have compact bodies, nice chests and big skulls, whereas captive male tigers, not counting the Sunda tigers, have more length, bigger fore-arms, bigger paws and larger canines. And 'large' (regarding canines) means more length, more width and more weight. Thyere are plenty of exceptions, but this is the general rule. The reason is that tigers are solitary hunters. They need different equipment. Tiger skulls are big gun platforums for quick kills. Lion skulls are needed to grab, hold and maul.  

All this top say that you, Leeds zoologist or no Leeds zoologist, was caught crapping again. As it, this time, resulted in misinformation, you lost all points right away, just when you was offered the opportunity to give it another try. Lions are splendid animals. The last thing they need to assist them is a crapper. Same for our readers.

You're offered one more chance to show you can deliver a bit of quality. One more crap is game over.

(12-30-2017, 02:28 AM)Garfield Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 04:57 PM)peter Wrote:

(12-29-2017, 03:46 AM)Garfield Wrote: Hey bros whatup, yeah was talkin to a dude on here, an he talked to a zoologist an they said lions gut the thicker teeth tiger longer.  So I mean like that pics an all but ya need some experts to do the real assessin.  Cuz otherwise were all just speculating pics, right?

In the last 15 years or so, I visited a number of museums in the Netherlands and Germany to measure big cat skulls. I also saw the collection of a few private collectors. All in all, I measured over 350 skulls. Most of these were lion and tiger skulls. Apart from that, I have detailed information about a few dozen skulls carefully measured by others. Watch the word 'detailed'.

The Dutch, as you know, had colonies in the past. Indonesia was one of them. For this reason, you'll find a lot of skulls of tigers from Java and Sumatra in Dutch museums. I also saw skulls from Bali. Sunda tigers, as you know, are smaller than tigers from Mainland Asia. A big wild male Sumatran tiger might reach 330 pounds, but most don't get even close to that mark. My guess is that an average male is 115-120 kg. (255-266 pounds), maybe a bit more. In total length, a male tiger from Sumatra, measured in a straight line, is about 236-237 cm., say 7 feet and 9 inches for now. 

I didn't finish the tables yet, but the greatest total length of the skull of wild adult male from Sumatra is about 310,00-315,00 mm. (average). At that length, the length of the upper canines ranges between 50,00-65,00 mm. The longest I saw were 71,00 mm. At the insertion, measured from front to back, they ranged between 23,00-27,00 mm. The upper canines of wild male tigers from Java are longer and heavier, but in relatives the difference is slightly in favour of the Sumatrans.

Wild male lions range between 255,00 - 305,00 cm. in total length. The longest could be Kruger lions. Wild adult males could average 270,00-275,00 cm. and 400-440 pounds. I propose 9 feet and 420 pounds for now. In greatest total skull length, they range between 330,00-400,00 mm. (up to 408,00 for a male from what's now Ethiopia). Anything know about the upper canines? Not from Kruger, but the upper canines of the male skulls I measured ranged between 52,00-67,00 mm. At the insertion in the upper jaw, measured from front to back, they ranged between 24,50-29,10 mm. 

If I was forced to get to a conclusion right now, I'd say the difference between wild male Sumatran tigers and wild male Afrian lions in the upper canine department (length and width at the insertion in the upper jaw) is close to zilch. This although wild male African lions are longer, heavier and bigger-skulled. As to a comparison between wild male African lions and wild male tigers from Mainland Asia. I leave that one to you. 

Anything on captive big cats? Yes. In the upper canine department, compared to their wild relatives, they are mere parodies. The things I saw in wild male adult big cats, however, are more or less similar. I have 8 big files loaded with measurements and photographs. When I opened the first, I found an example I would consider as typical. 

In the blue corner, at my left, is a captive male lion from a Dutch facility. He was a big as they come. When he perished, he was measured by Dr. P. van Bree, an undisputed authority on big cats and skulls. Measured in a straight line, the lion was 216,7 cm. in head and body. If we add the tail, 84,00 cm., we get to a total of 300,7 cm. Very long, that is. The giant was weighed in a facility where all captive big cats were weighed in those days. He was 280,00 kg. (618 pounds). I measured his skull in 2004. Twice, to be sure. Greatest total length: 378,00 mm. Condylobasal length 326,00 mm. Zygomatic width: 248,00 mm. Upper canine length: 67,00 mm. Width at the inserttion in the upper jaw: 28,00 mm. Weight of the skull (not defatted): 2,450 kg.  

In the red corner, at my right, is a captive adult male Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris). He died in 1978 in a well-known Dutch zoo and he too didn't escape the attention of Dr. P. van Bree. Head and body length: 174,00 cm. Tail: 89,50 cm. Total length: 263,50 cm. (just under 8 feet 8 inches). Weight: 104 kg. (230 pounds). Greatest total length of the skull: 348,00 mm. Condylobasal length: 311,60 mm. Zygomatic width: 242,20 mm. Upper canine length: broken. Width of the upper canines at the insertion of the upper jaw: 29,10 mm. Weight of the skull: 1,390 kg.

Compared to the giant male lion, the captive male Indian tiger was a joke in all respects. Dr. P. van Bree saw him many times. He told me the tiger had been small and in bad shape all his life. But his upper canines were as big as they come. I have much more examples of smallish tiger skulls with big canines and they would not be a result of selection. I'm not saying that an average captive male lion doesn't compare to an average captive male tiger (he most certainly does). I'm also not saying that a male lion doesn't compare in the upper canine department (he most certainly does). In relatives, however, a captive male tiger, regarding the upper canines, has an advantrage in length, width and weight. If we add large male tigers from Mainland Asia (referring to Indian and Amur tigers), the difference often is significant.

To conclude. Captive male lions have compact bodies, nice chests and big skulls, whereas captive male tigers, not counting the Sunda tigers, have more length, bigger fore-arms, bigger paws and larger canines. And 'large' (regarding canines) means more length, more width and more weight. Thyere are plenty of exceptions, but this is the general rule. The reason is that tigers are solitary hunters. They need different equipment. Tiger skulls are big gun platforums for quick kills. Lion skulls are needed to grab, hold and maul.  

All this top say that you, Leeds zoologist or no Leeds zoologist, was caught crapping again. As it, this time, resulted in misinformation, you lost all points right away, just when you was offered the opportunity to give it another try. Lions are splendid animals. The last thing they need to assist them is a crapper. Same for our readers.

You're offered one more chance to show you can deliver a bit of quality. One more crap is game over.

Alright bro I mean I don't completely understand all the data and measurements posted, I have a spare ruler in my house an it only has inches an cm, so its hard to judge what your saying on mm and stuff.  But thats fine, if what your saying is legit then no prob.  But checked back with the dudes about that zoologist and they said they don't have the page anymore but he was from tigerterritory, they said he was definetly a Leeds zoologist.  There going to try to get the actual letter where it says that.  I gut some more quotes from them where he said stuff to.  Something about the barbary also having extra stout teeth, no joke.   An one thing, if the zoologist said he measured 40 lions samples an 17 tigers, I mean that ain't nothin, an if he said the tiger was 1.5 cm longer, that ain't nothin either, that seems legit if they're longer.  So why say that an then lie sayin the lions were 1cm thicker at base, makes no sense bro. 

I would just say, do you have more samples equal to this guy that you can show, maybe both are right.

(12-30-2017, 12:41 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @peter

Is the canine insertion of the skull being the broadest part of the entire canine tooth? Since the canine can be extracted from there without cracking the bone, otherwise the jaw bone would be damaged if the lower part beneath being broader.

(12-30-2017, 06:35 AM)peter Wrote: Yes.