(09-19-2015, 12:23 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @GuateGojira, so would you need the images in vK's book?

I think we can interchange lower and upper canines in photographic overlays easily. Nevertheless, I'm still leaning toward the canines we have been investigating to be lower canines due to the colorations which would show the boundary of the gums. The tapering of the canines at the end also is another piece of evidence to this conclusion in my opinion (I looked through Merriam and Stock and the canine/claws thread and this trend is quite consistent), as stated before. Finally, the lower canines look relatively thinner compared to their height. 

@Fieryeel, would you mind if I cited your canine in my appendix for my studies (I'd cite it as private collection)?

(09-19-2015, 05:39 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Remember the genetic studies that group the South China tiger pretty much on its own and the study (I forget the name) that mentioned that this species is likely the stem group? Maybe that is why the canine fit better. 

Insular dwarfism probably had to have affected skull morphology to some degree. I wonder have fast the downsizing occurred. Sea levels were still quite low 20 kya (Source and read this source for maps, look at the 120 m and 105 m contour maps). As an analogy, I've read of a dwarf Stegodon of Indonesia that evolved from a larger version 840 kya went extinct around 12 kya, but sea level-wise, dwarf pressures due to spatial limitation shouldn't have occurred until 20 kya. I'm reading up on the potential prey fauna to get clues on how fast the changes may have occurred. This is the reading.

I noticed the drawings of Javan tiger skulls differ a bit from the actual photos I've seen. I wonder if the misfit is just intraspecific variation.