(04-24-2014, 04:26 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: I would assume Polar bear claws are more closely related to Tiger claws than any other bear claw. The need to dig seems to take presedent for most other bear species, so there claws are geared towards that direction from what I have seen.

 

(04-24-2014, 04:39 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Ya, similar to Sloth bears.
Black bears must have a mix of both so they can climb as well. Probably have more agile wrists as well to grip tree trunks from the sides.

 

(04-24-2014, 05:05 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: As far I know, only Mazák (1981) had measured the claws of the tiger. Apart from that, the only other measurements are those from Bone Clones and other molds.

http://www.boneclones.com/KO-071.html
Bone Clones specimen measure 3 1/4" (8.3 cm), but this is the measurement of the entire claw with bone, not the claw itself.

I am prety sure that Bengal and Amur tigers have the same claw length. The huge Ramsay tiger had a claw length of 3 inches (7.62 cm), probably over the curve. Sadly, it is not say which claw is this or if it is just an overall average of all claws.

Other interesting thing is that the Ramsay tiger have upper canines of 3 in (7.62 cm), taken to the gum line, as all the measurements were taken in the flesh of the animal. The circunference of the upper canines at the gum is also of 3 inches.
 

 

(04-24-2014, 05:32 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: The Ramsay tiger was a wild Bengal tiger hunted by Col. Ramsay in the late 19 century. Here are the measurements:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is by far the largest tiger ever recorded, and although its total length was taken betwen pegs, I calculate that the head-body of this giant, between pegs, was of c.225 cm. It was estiamted to weight 616 lb (279 kg), as far I remember. It is larger, in all dimentions, than the giant tiger of Brander. [img]images/smilies/exclamation.gif[/img]
 

 

(04-24-2014, 05:56 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I think that for comparison purposes 1 millimeter is completelly irrelevant. However, in the book of Thapar (2004), it say also 3 inches in the conversion. Check the image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, at the end, both records are equal: 7.5 cm = 3 inches. This is good, because now we have two records of Bengal tiger with canines of 7.5 cm (3 inches) in length from the tip to the gum. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
 

 

(04-24-2014, 07:10 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Sadly, no. The problem is that I don’t have much data about canines lengths related with other measurements. For example, I only have three wild tigers with its canine size and body measurements, while I have other three from captive Amur ones. So, my database is too small to even dare to make calculations. So I think that is better to leave it like that, for the moment.
 
Interestingly there is more data about lions in this field than tigers, not because scientists don’t take these measurements, but because they don’t publish it.
 

 

(04-24-2014, 09:06 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Well. just list whatever is available to you, since it is hard to gather all the scattered information together.

 

(04-24-2014, 12:14 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:

(04-24-2014, 09:06 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Well. just list whatever is available to you, since it is hard to gather all the scattered information together.


 

Ok, I will do it tomorrow, after all, it is not much. [img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img]

Obviously the data from peter (talking about canines) will help too, although those measurements don't have, in most of the cases, body measurements, only skull ones.