(12-30-2017, 06:55 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

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

Do you also think that lion canine belongs to a larger animal than tiger?

That tiger canine belongs to a historical Amoyen tiger in North China, and the crown part below the gumline is similar for both animals, and the lion should be turned out to be a larger animal.

And the jag canine in the middle likely belongs to a large 100 kg male.

(12-30-2017, 05:54 PM)peter Wrote:

(12-30-2017, 06:55 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

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

Do you also think that lion canine belongs to a larger animal than tiger?

That tiger canine belongs to a historical Amoyen tiger in North China, and the crown part below the gumline is similar for both animals, and the lion should be turned out to be a larger animal.

And the jag canine in the middle likely belongs to a large 100 kg male.

Very likely. There is a relation between upper canine size, skull size and body size in big cats, but it's slightly different in every species. Tigers have relatively (upper canine length divided by condylobasal length or greatest total skull length) longer canines than lions. The upper canine length of an average male Sumatran tiger more or less compares to the upper canine length of an average male African lion (length and width). This should tell you something about 'relative' regarding upper canine length, as an average male Sumatran tiger has a greatest total skull length of just over 310,00 mm., whereas the greatest total skull length in an average male African lion is over 350,00 mm.

I went over what I have and found 9 skulls of male lions with an upper canine length of 60,00 mm. and over. These 9 averaged 63,10 mm. in upper canine length (range 60,00 - 67,00). In greatest total skull length, they averaged 371,17 mm. (range 354,57 - 384,55). Of these 9 skulls, 6 were from wild animals.

As to the width of the upper canines at the insertion in the upper jaw (measured from front to back). I found 13 skulls of male lions of which the upper canines had a width of 27,50 mm. or more at the insertion. These 13 males averaged 28,71 mm. (range 27,50 - 31,00). In greatest total skull length, they averaged 369,64 mm. (range 345,70 - 408,00). Of these 13 animals, 7 had been born and bred in captivity.

One could conclude that wild male lions have slightly longer upper canines than their captive relatives. In width, measured at the insertion, there seems to be no difference. Captive male lions, if anything, seem to have wider upper canines. As they also have significantly wider skulls (referring to the arches), one could conclude that captivity seems to affect both the width of the skull and the width of the canines. The thickest upper canines (31,00 mm.), to be sure, belonged to a skull of a wild male lion from Tanzania. This although his skull (365,56 mm.) was not exceptional in length.  

In tigers, it's the other way round, meaning that the upper canines of wild tigers are both longer and (quite a bit) wider than those of their captive relatives (this at the level of averages). The difference seems to be significant. The reason is that tigers, as solitary big game hunters, need specific tools. More so than lions, who live in groups. Uppercaninewise, one could conclude that it's use it or lose it in tigers. Not quite true for lions, so it seems.   

Anyhow. The question was if a male lion with a long and strong upper canine could be a larger animal than a tiger with a upper canine of similar length and width. Based on what I saw, I would get to a clear yes. Male lions with long and thick upper canines average about 370 mm. in greatest total skull length. I didn't finish the tables on tigers, but my guess for now is that it's quite different. All this without quite a bit of overlap as a result of individual variation, of course. 

As to a relation between greatest total skull length and body size in big cats. Based on what I have, I'd say that it's weak, but real. My guess for now is more so in lions than in tigers.