+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Terrestrial Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-terrestrial-wild-animals)
+--- Thread: Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws (/topic-skulls-skeletons-canines-claws)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
RE: Huge tiger skulls - GrizzlyClaws - 10-02-2017
(10-02-2017, 10:40 AM)genao87 Wrote:(10-02-2017, 10:28 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(10-02-2017, 10:15 AM)genao87 Wrote: this is mind boggling now that the regular African Lion went to huge sizes.....and not the Cave Lion and American Lion (who are no longer lions) do not have that much of size advantage on them. Speaking with Tigerluver, He mentioned that for now Ngangdong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) is still the champ.
The Cave lion and American lion possibly did not have any size advantage over the Amur tiger and African lion in their prime since everyone in the past got supersized thanked to the much healthier ecosystems and much more abundant prey base.
The modern tigers and lions are simply more versatile in the adaption, hence they managed to successfully shrink their size accordingly to the new environment, and those with less adaption capability like the Cave lion lineage simply got forsaken by the Mother Nature.
So Grizz, I expect the same size difference between the Prehistoric African Lion and Amur Tiger...possibly the same goes for the Bengal but I didnt hear anything from you yet on the matter. But I guess the Tigers even back then when they were both huge, the Tiger just had the same size advantage over the Lion as they do today? I am assuming the same the 8-10% that Tigers have over Lions today.
Possibly, but for now, we still need more concrete evidence, so we just assume they were in the same league.
RE: Huge tiger skulls - johnny rex - 10-02-2017
Any thoughts on Kaziranga tiger skull measurements? It seems those guys could have some of the largest skulls of extant felid by looking at some size comparison between some males and rhino and water buffalo carcasses.
RE: Huge tiger skulls - GrizzlyClaws - 10-02-2017
(10-02-2017, 08:25 PM)johnny rex Wrote: Any thoughts on Kaziranga tiger skull measurements? It seems those guys could have some of the largest skulls of extant felid by looking at some size comparison between some males and rhino and water buffalo carcasses.
These guys are probably the most lion-looking tigers, their skull is just like the lion's, proportionally longer but also narrower. I speculate some large males could have 17 inches skull.
In contrast, the Amur tigers are the least lion-looking tigers with the roundest features of all tiger subspecies.
RE: Huge tiger skulls - genao87 - 10-03-2017
(10-02-2017, 08:54 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(10-02-2017, 08:25 PM)johnny rex Wrote: Any thoughts on Kaziranga tiger skull measurements? It seems those guys could have some of the largest skulls of extant felid by looking at some size comparison between some males and rhino and water buffalo carcasses.
These guys are probably the most lion-looking tigers, their skull is just like the lion's, proportionally longer but also narrower. I speculate some large males could have 17 inches skull.
In contrast, the Amur tigers are the least lion-looking tigers with the roundest features of all tiger subspecies.
I was arguing with some lion fans in the past that the rounder the skull features, the more potential for it to be more robust/stronger. Is this true or is this another myth?
RE: Huge tiger skulls - GrizzlyClaws - 10-03-2017
Potentially true, usually the robust skull got the roundest features such as the greatest width/length ratio, broadest muzzle, greatest vault.
RE: Huge tiger skulls - GrizzlyClaws - 10-03-2017
@genao87
I think the tiger from the Korean movie "An Old Hunter's Tale" should be what a prehistoric Amur tiger from the northern part of Manchuria looked like.
While Shere Khan from Disney's Jungle Book looks like a Ngandong tiger.
RE: Huge tiger skulls - peter - 10-03-2017
(10-02-2017, 08:25 PM)johnny rex Wrote: Any thoughts on Kaziranga tiger skull measurements? It seems those guys could have some of the largest skulls of extant felid by looking at some size comparison between some males and rhino and water buffalo carcasses.
A - Panthera tigris tigris
Most unfortunately, there is no information about the size of tigers in that part of India today. However. In 1908, 'Thirty-seven years of big game shooting in Cooch Behar, the Duars, and Assam. A rough diary', written by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, was published. Although the region in which the Maharajah and his guests hunted was a bit more to the (north)west, I propose to assume that Kazirangha is zoologically part of that region.
As his book has a lot of information. I decided for a number of tables based on his book. They were posted in the tiger-extinction thread in January 2016. If we want to compare tigers shot in region with tigers shot in other regions, we need information collected in the same period. Is there anything? Yes. Plenty. Most of it is in old books.
To keep it short. The information in the book of the Maharajah was confirmed in other books in which Assam tigers featured. In that part of India, in those days (1870-1940 roughly), most tigers were measured 'over curves'. Compared to tigers shot in central parts of India (where they were measured 'between pegs'), they were about as long (referring to total length). The difference was in weight: Assam tigers were heavier.
And how about skulls? Things in that department are not as clear, but what we know confirms what is seen on photographs of Assam tigers in that they seem to have relatively large skulls.
Here's the 3 tables on male tigers I posted in January 2016. Notice the decline in size over time. You can find detailed information in the liner notes (at the bottom). Tigers with large skulls are significantly longer and heavier than average. Skull size could be related to age. Also watch the measurements for 'head' (head circumference):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The average greatest skull length of wild male Indian tigers in those days was 350,00 - 355,00 mm., say 14 inches roughly. I didn't see many skulls of wild male tigers, but there are skulls of captive male Indian tigers in museums and private collections. Today, with the exception of Pakistan perhaps, there are no captive Indian tigers outside India, but half a century ago the situation was different. The skulls I saw were a bit shorter, but wider than skulls of wild male Indian tigers.
The longest skull measured by Pocock (1929, 1939) was 378,00 mm. in greatest total length, but that doesn't mean that reports about larger skulls provided by hunters can be dismissed as exaggerations. Hunters donated skulls of tigers to museums every now and then, but they often kept the largest skulls.
B - Panthera tigris altaica
I never saw a skull of a wild male Amur tiger, but there are skulls of captive Amur tigers in museums and private collections. Most of them were longer than skulls of captive male Indian tigers, but not as wide and robust. There is reliable information about skulls of captive males well surpassing 335,00 mm. in condylobasal length, suggesting a greatest total length of ranging between 380,00 - 400,00 mm., but my guess is that skulls of Indian tigers could be more robust. In the canine department, however, Amur tigers are unsurpassed.
Every now and then, tiger skulls are found in northern China. Up until 1950-1960, Manchuria had Amur tigers. They are now extinct, but it is possible that some captive Amur tigers, as Grizzly suggested, still carry information of these giants. And giants they must have been. Some of these prehistoric skulls are much larger than the skulls I saw, again suggesting that tigers walking the edge, just like in Indonesia and Vietnam, quickly change in size when the heat is on. This is something that didn't quite happen in India and the result is that Indian tigers, also as a result of good conditions and severe competition in reserves, are now a bit more robust than wild Amur tigers. But the Russians are changing the situation and they have both time and room at their disposal. If the population exceeds a thousand adults or so and poaching of prey animals can be limited, things will change again.
C - Pleistocene big cats
Pleistocene and early Holocene tigers must have lived like kings. The bones and skulls found in the last century strongly suggest they, both in the north (Manchuria and the Russian Far East) and in the south (in what's now Indonesia), reached a size not seen today. Half a century ago or so, zoologists and biologists often quickly dismissed reports about tigers well exceeding the limits of their day, saying size wouldn't change a lot in a few hundred years only. But if tigers can dwarf in a century, and they did in a number of regions just before they were pushed off the cliff, the opposite also is possible.
So how big was big back then? I read a thesis about a prehistoric lion in Europe (Siegdorf, Germany). Compared to bones and skulls of lions found elsewhere in Europe, the Siegdorf male wasn't exceptional in any way. In spite of that, he most probably was 200-210 cm. in head and body length (measured in a straight line). In his prime, if he would have had a similar robustness ratio as male big cats today (1,0 - 1,5), he would have ranged somewhere between 200 - 315 kg. (441 - 695 lbs.). Exceptional males could have added 30-50%, meaning a very large individual could have exceeded 800 lbs.
Seems a bit inflated, but if you see the size of some captive big cats, it isn't. It's most often seen in captive Amur tigers, because lions, as social cats, would have been affected sooner by deteriorating conditions and smaller prey animals. It's more likely they lost information about size, that is. In northern China and Russia, however, pressure in general would have been less intense. Peoplenumberwise more so than anywhere else. In the end, that could prove to be the key to size. That, conditions and isolation (no influx of new genes).
And what kind of skull would 800 lbs. and over produce? Well, could be something like this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
D - The 15,75 inch tiger skull
Biologists, as stated before, never saw a tiger skull exceeding 15 inches (381,00 mm.) in greatest total length. But most didn't see much more than a hundred skulls and not one of them visit the natural history museums in Vladivostok and Chabarowsk. Per Christiansen, in one of his papers, mentioned a few skulls of captive male Amur tigers. One of these exceeded 350,00 mm. in condylobasal length, meaning that skull most probably was close to or just over 400,00 mm. in greatest total length. Baikov also mentioned skull of that size and my guess is there are more.
Skulls of Indian tigers also exceed 15 inches (381,00 mm.) in greatest total length (apparently up to 406,40 mm.) at times, but these two subspecies are the only ones to reach that size. This means that skulls of exceptional males of these subspecies are about 2-3 inches longer than an average male skull. The main difference with average skulls, however, isn't in length, but in robustness. A big skull can be twice as heavy as an average-sized skull.
Assuming that the average of Pleistocene big cats exceeded the average of big cats today by 5-15% and including the fact that tigers can reach 16 inches in greatest total length, one could assume that the largest Pleistocene tigers reached about 18 inches in greatest total length. The largest lions, assuming the difference in size would have been similar to the difference seen today, could have exceeded 19 inches or slightly over. I agree with Guate's estimate for maximum total length, but my guess is that his estimate for width (11,5 inches or 292,10 mm.), at least in tigers, is too low. Large skulls often are relatively wider than average-sized skulls. Width is age-related and age often results in more robustness (also seen in brown bears).
In many tiger skulls, the rostrum widens towards the canines. Both skulls featuring in the photograph below are atypical in that they lack a widening rostrum. The occiput of the skull right is narrow and compressed along the outer edge. This is often seen in Java tiger skulls, but the occiput in Java tiger skulls often is a bit longer. Sagittal crest in both skulls well developed, meaning both skulls belonged ot old animals.
*This image is copyright of its original author
E - Skull of a young adult male Java tiger for comparison
Watch the shape of the occiput:
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Huge tiger skulls - peter - 10-03-2017
(10-01-2017, 11:02 AM)johnny rex Wrote: Anyway, can anyone guess the measurements of the skull of Panthera t. acutidens that was posted by @GrizzlyClaws previously? @peter, any thoughts?
F - Size
Guate thought the skull could have measured 17,5 inches in greatest total length and 11,5 inches in width. My guess would be shorter and wider. Could have been twice as heavy as an average male Amur tiger, though. Its main feature is robustness. Never saw such massive teeth. Rostrum unsurpassed as well:
*This image is copyright of its original author
G - Subspecies
Only skulls of large male tigers belonging to Panthera tigris tigris and Panthera tigris altaica can exceed 15 inches in greatest total length. This means that the skull you posted belonged to a captive male Indian tiger or a captive male Amur tiger.
According to many, there are no Indian tigers outside of India. But a trainer I interviewed some years ago told me he had visited a facility in the US that had the largest tigers he had ever seen. He was sure they were pure Indian tigers. I have more information about Indian tigers in US facilities.
The first picture is the skull you posted. The second picture has the skull of a wild male Amur tiger with a total length of 16 inches. The third picture shows the skull of a captive male Indian tiger I measured. The last picture has the skull you posted alongside the skull of 'an average captive male tiger'.
Profilewise, the skulls in the first and third picture are similar. Topdownwise, the skull in the third and the fourth picture also are similar. The occiputs are a bit different, but the nasals are not. Same for the general structure. The skull in the second picture is different in most respects.
The conclusion is the skull you posted didn't belong to a captive male Amur tiger, but to a captive male Indian tiger.
This means that the assumption on no Indian tigers outside of India isn't correct. It could be that Indian tigers are no longer exported, but many were in the past. As it is possible that some of those who were exported a long time ago were not mixed with other subspecies, it can't be completely excluded that some facilities in the US have pure Indian tigers. If so, they were either inbred or not. If not, it means that a trade in pure Indian tigers can't be excluded. Could be a business in the US only, but it could be that facilities in other countries are involved. Doesn't mean that India could be involved, but it's clear that a few things need to be clarified.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
H - Total length, weight and skull size of 19 male Indian tigers
I nearly forgot this one. It has info on 19 male Indian tigers shot between 1880-1954.
- The information on tiger 19 isn't correct regarding greatest total length, as it was measured 'over the bone', meaning the tape most probably followed the (curves of) the bone (length should be measured in a straight line).
- The first remark in the liner notes at the bottom (see -a-) has a typo. It said that the minimum skull length of the 7 tigers shot in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam was 368,30 mm., whereas it was 360,68 mm. The average skull length of these 7 tigers, as stated, was indeed 381,725 mm. (just over 15 inches).
- The body length of tigers 08 and 09 was measured in a straight line ('between pegs'). Tiger 09 had the widest skull of all. Judging from the circumference of the chest and the fore-arm, it must have been a very large animal.
- Although there seems to be no strong relation between body length and greatest skull length, the 7 long-skulled Cooch Behar tigers were 5 inches longer in total body length and at least (the biggest tiger wasn't weighed) 32,8 lbs. heavier than average.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Huge tiger skulls - GrizzlyClaws - 10-03-2017
I think only a 2 inches wide canine can fit well into that skull.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Huge tiger skulls - GrizzlyClaws - 10-03-2017
@peter
The larger lion canine is overall 25% symmetrically larger in the three dimensions, and is it possible that its skull is also 25% larger?
Since the skull of the smaller lion canine is 38 cm.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Huge tiger skulls - peter - 10-03-2017
(10-03-2017, 10:20 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @peter
The larger lion canine is overall 25% symmetrically larger in the three dimensions, and is it possible that its skull is also 25% larger?
Since the skull of the smaller lion canine is 38 cm.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
First remember I didn't measure the complete canine, but the part from the tip to the insertion in a straight line. Also remember I didn't get to conclusions in that department yet.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a relation between upper canine length and greatest total skull length, but my guess is the relation is weak at best and I don't think it would stretch to width.
Upper canine length seems to be an individual thing in all big cats, maybe even more so in lions. Same for width. The longest lion skull I measured was 408,00 mm. in greatest total length. The upper canines, however, were not exceptional. They were a bit longer than average, but the upper canines in a much shorter Cape lion skull were longer and heavier. I've seen more shortish lion skulls with large teeth.
RE: Big Cat's Canines and Claws - Betty - 10-15-2017
Lion
https://www.avito.ru/volgograd/ohota_i_rybalka/kogot_lva_902383223
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Big Cat's Canines and Claws - GrizzlyClaws - 10-15-2017
(10-15-2017, 09:10 AM)Betty Wrote: Lion
https://www.avito.ru/volgograd/ohota_i_rybalka/kogot_lva_902383223
*This image is copyright of its original author
The sheath of the claws has been removed.
RE: Big Cat's Canines and Claws - Betty - 10-17-2017
African Lion claw and African wild cat.
https://bluescuriosities.deviantart.com/art/African-Claws-453101862
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Big Cat's Canines and Claws - Betty - 10-17-2017
In the golden highlighted box are an array of coyote, green is wolf, and the bottom row from L->R is Canadian Bobcat, cougar, and African lion.
https://featheredwing.deviantart.com/art/Claw-Collection-Comparison-376124254
*This image is copyright of its original author