WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
|
For those that love the comparative images, and want to see also the "largest sizes", here is the one about the "the largest tiger" sizes recorded, check it out:
 *This image is copyright of its original author To be sincere, there is not too much difference between the animals, just some 13 cm longer and 8 cm taller in the hunting records, although in the image, the difference is evident. In the skull department there is also few difference (less than 3 cm). Mayor differences are in the chest girth (20 cm) and in the body mass (30 kg). How do I obtain the weight of 290 kg? Simple, Smythies vouched the giant male of 320 kg, however it is widely know that in Nepal, most hunts were with baits (it was the standard method) so the tiger was surely baited. Dr McDougal recorded one exceptional instance of a huge male eating up to 35 kg, meanwhile Dr Sunquist based in several samples, found that the maximum food intake was of c.19 kg (18.6 kg to be exact). So, if we exclude those quantities for the record, we get this: 320 - 35 = 285 320 - 19 = 301 * average of the two = 293 kg In this form, I calculated an empty belly weight of c.290 kg for that huge male, assuming a food intake of c.30 kg, for such a huge specimen. Interestingly, most of the figures came from the Bengal tigers, except for the modern records. Here is the full explanation of the image: 1. Scientific records: The total length came from a male tiger captured in Nagarahole (311 cm), while the longest Amur tiger captured was of 309 cm. The head-body of 208 cm came from that longest Amur male, as the longest Bengal specimen from Nagarahole had a head-body of 204 cm; interestingly we can see that the Bengal had a longer tail, in this case. There are no records of shoulder heights in modern Bengal tigers, so I use the record for the Amur one (106 cm). The chest girth is from Sauraha, but is possible that other males, like Madla, could have a larger chest girth. The skull sizes are from Bengal tigers, just like the record of weight. 2. Reliable hunting records: The total length came from the giant Amur tiger quoted by Mazák, however, we can't forget that the largest male from Brander (221 cm head-body) had a very short tail of less than 90 cm. If that tiger would have a tail just like the Sauraha male (113 cm), the total length, between pegs, would be of 334 cm! So, the figure of 330 cm is completely plausible for Bengal tigers too. All the other dimensions came from Bengal tigers, except for the skull wide, which came from the Manchurian giant skull. The widest skull for a Bengal tiger was of 283 cm. Hope you like, you can save it. If you have doubts, you can ask in any time. Greetings to all.
An average "black" tiger:
It is known fact that there are semi-melanistic tigers in the wild, particularly in the Simlipal National Park of India. So, I searched the best image of these specimens that I could found, and with a lot of work, I managed to create this comparative image, scaling it like an average specimen (with the original data from the first comparative image). Check the result:  *This image is copyright of its original author I chosen this because I think that it would be very impressive to see such a large "black" tiger in the wild. Let me know what do you think of it. Greetings to all. 
I have a Bengal tiger skull from a large male 284cm long and 229cm wide, but the skull is enormous. It was an old skin rug from 1936 that needed restoration and I had the skull taken out. It measures approximately 44cm long and 36cm wide. I have only one of the two upper canines which I don't believe are particularly long but with full root is total of just under 14cm around the curve or 12cm straight.
Am happy to talk to anyone who wants to know more or for verification - my measurements are not particularly accurate as just done with a workmans retractable tape measure. Let me know if you're interested. Jonathan 
Welcome to the community Jonathan ( @Thebingthing ) . Its really impressive to own a bengal tiger skull. I am sure many of community member are interested in this. I am tagging them @peter , @GuateGojira , @tigerluver, @GrizzlyClaws and @Pckts
 (09-12-2015, 04:49 PM)Thebingthing Wrote: I have a Bengal tiger skull from a large male 284cm long and 229cm wide, but the skull is enormous. It was an old skin rug from 1936 that needed restoration and I had the skull taken out. It measures approximately 44cm long and 36cm wide. I have only one of the two upper canines which I don't believe are particularly long but with full root is total of just under 14cm around the curve or 12cm straight. That's awesome, and a picture of that skull will be even more appreciated. (09-12-2015, 04:49 PM)Thebingthing Wrote: I have a Bengal tiger skull from a large male 284cm long and 229cm wide, but the skull is enormous. It was an old skin rug from 1936 that needed restoration and I had the skull taken out. It measures approximately 44cm long and 36cm wide. I have only one of the two upper canines which I don't believe are particularly long but with full root is total of just under 14cm around the curve or 12cm straight. Hello @Thebingthing, welcome to the forum. About your large skull, that size reminds me the figure of Sterndale (1884), which measured a skull at 441 mm around the curve with a tape (387 mm straight). I guess that is the form that you measured your skull. I will like to see a picture of the specimen (skull and skin, if possible). If you have a steel tape, it will be very difficult to measure the skull. However, if you have two vertical squares, like those used to keep books straight, you can place the tiger skull between them and measure the distance, just like a measurement between pegs. Check this image:  *This image is copyright of its original author In this form, you can guess the greatest length of the skull. However, if you want a perfect measurements, you should use a caliper and take the size from the extreme of the premaxillary bones up to the end of the sagital crest. Using the same method, you can measure the real zygomatic wide. @peter has measured many skulls, he can give more tips. Greetings.
I am sorry to say I got some of my measurements mixed up on paper as to the skull size versus the head size of the taxidermy...I got too excited
 Apologies for that, posting anyway to see if it at least adds some value to your research. Roughly 36cm x 25.5cm  (09-12-2015, 04:49 PM)Thebingthing Wrote: I have a Bengal tiger skull from a large male 284cm long and 229cm wide, but the skull is enormous. It was an old skin rug from 1936 that needed restoration and I had the skull taken out. It measures approximately 44cm long and 36cm wide. I have only one of the two upper canines which I don't believe are particularly long but with full root is total of just under 14cm around the curve or 12cm straight. Welcome to the forum and and thanks for the contributions, Jonathan. Hope you're here to stay. Not all of us have rugs and skulls of Indian tigers. My gut feeling says there's more where that came from. If so, please don't hesitate to inform us. We're most interested. The photographs you posted are much appreciated. Based on what I saw, I'd say you're right regarding India. The upper skull is very vaulted, which is typical for many Indian tiger skulls. As I didn't see superfluous growths typical for many skulls of captive tigers, my guess is the skull belonged to a wild Indian tiger. Judging from the length, I'd say it was a male. Any idea how and when the owner of the skull was killed? Anything known on the circumstances? The hunter? You wrote the tiger was 284 cm. My guess is this measurement refers to the skin, as you also said the width was 229 cm. Correct? Anything known on the total length of the tiger when he was shot? If so, can you find out if the tiger was measured 'over curves' or 'between pegs'? Was the tiger weighed? As for the skull. I noticed the sutures are not closed. I compared the photographs to others and concluded the owner still had some growing to do when he was killed. My guess would be a young male, not quite adult. Another reason to get to that conclusion is in the length of the upper canines. Those of adult wild adult male Indian tigers usually well exceed 50 mm. measured from the gum line (referring to the white part of the upper canine). The amount of wear also was quite limited. A pity the last end of the sagittal crest was damaged, but you could still measure the skull. 1 - Greatest total length Remove the upper skull from the mandibula and place it in your lap. Measure the distance between the tip of the maxillary bone (just above the insertion of the incisors) to the tip of the sagittal crest in a straight line. When you have the correct line (lateral view), check it from above. Make sure the incisors are excluded. It isn't easy to measure the greatest total length, because the large upper canines create an angle when you place the skull on a table. You can remove the angle by using the right equipment and moving the skull to your lap. Find a scale of 20 inches or thereabout. It has two long teeth that extend downward. Both teeth have tips that can be inserted in the skull. Insert the tip of the first tooth just above the incisors and use the downward extention of the second tooth (not the tip) directly behind the sagittal crest. You now have the correct line. Move the skull to a flat surface and measure the distance in a straight line. The line needs to be horizontal when you measure it. If you don't have the equipment needed, go to a museum (ask for the conservator) or a university. Many would be interested to see the skull of a wild Indian tiger. 2 - Condylobasal length You need the scale mentioned above to measure the condylobasal length. Here's the procedure. Place the upper skull in your lap and turn it upside down. Insert the tip of the first tooth directly behind the insertion of the incisors. The second tooth has to be inserted directly behind the condylae. When done, move the skull, still turned upside down and with the two teeth inserted, from your lap to the table. Ask someone hold the skull (as it will rock on the table) and check if you inserted the teeth at the correct points. Now measure the distance on a horizontal line. Repeat the procedure to make sure. Most biologists prefer the condylobasal length over the greatest total length, because it reflects the true length of the skull. When the greatest total length is measured, age is incorporated (older animals usually have longer crests than young animals). 3 - Zygomatic width In order to measure the width of the skull at the arches, you need the extentions of both teeth of the scale, not the tips. Remove the upper skull from the mandibula and place it on your lap. Select the widest point, press both teeth against the arches and measure the distance in a straight line. You can also measure it on a flat surface (a table) with the upper skull placed on the mandibula. You will notice that the measurement often will be slightly increased (1-2 mm.). The reason is the angle. 4 - Weight I would be much interested in the weight of the skull. Any scale would do. 5 - Rostrum In tiger skulls, the maxillary bone usually extends towards the canines. In order to measure the width of the rostrum, you need a scale with two teeth again. A small one would do this time. Now for the procedure. Turn the front of the skull towards you and mark the outer edge of both canines on the maxillary bone (the snout) just above the upper canines. Now watch the markers you placed on the maxillary bone from above. Extend them 0,5-1,0 cm. and measure the distance between both. Make sure they are on the widest part of the maxillary bone, just above the upper canines, but not quite at the end. Measure the distance between both markers in a straight line. 6 - Upper canine width In order the measure the width of the upper canines, you need a small scale with two teeth. Place one at the front of the canine and the other at the back. Measure the distance between both teeth. Make sure you measure the distance at the insertion of the upper canines. 7 - Pm4 The Pm4 is the last molar in the upper tooth row (upper jaw). Measure the distance between the front and back in a straight line and use the small scale. 8 - Height at the orbit This is the height of the skull at the heighest point (usually close to the orbit). In order to measure the distance, you need the complete skull. Measure the distance between the heighest point and the table in a straight line. In order to make things easier, place something on top of the skull. A small scale would do just fine. 9 - More information You can go to post 676 in the thread 'On the Edge of Extinction' (tigers) to read a bit more about skulls and methods to measure them. There are more posts about skulls close by. As to the size of skulls of adult male tigers. Most skulls of wild male Indian tigers range between 320,00 - 375,00 mm. in greatest total length. The longest I know of, all measured by well-trained Forest Officers and experienced taxidermists (like Van Ingen), ranged between 380,00 - 399,00 mm. One male tiger shot in northern India by Sir John Hewett's daughter had a skull of 16,25 inches in greatest total length. This tiger was 10.2 'over curves' in total length, measured half a day after he was shot. Although exceptional, it wasn't as wide as your skull. Skulls of captive male Indian tigers usually are shorter, relatively wider at the arches and a bit lower at the orbit. The upper canines often are shorter and narrower. Skulls of wild male lions usually are a bit flatter and longer. In most lion skulls, the maxillary bone narrows a bit towards the upper canines. When placed on a flat surface, lion skulls often 'rock'. The reason is the mandibula often is a bit convex. The mandibula in a tiger is either straight or slightly concave. In skulls of captive big cats, however, anything is possible. If you want to know more, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck and thanks in advance, Peter.
The date for the tiger as sold was 1936, and I removed newspaper and plaster around it that formed part of the stuffed head that was also dated 1936 and was from Indian newspapers and other documents, so I think it is safe to assume it was A wild Bengal given the period and the papers.
I'll certainly try and take some other measurements and post back. I also have another one which is very very small, im not sure of what subspecies it is or anything - I naturally assume most in the UK are bengals given the history between the UK and India but it just doesn't look like anything else. As they are antiques I would rather rescue and restore these than see them go to ruin...sad to see so few left so want to preserve these old pieces where possible.
Indian newspapers and other documents sounds promising when one would want to know a bit more about the region in which the tiger might have been shot.
We would be interested in the very small skull as well. Perhaps you can find the time to take a few photographs? India still has many wild cats, but it could be a skull of a very young big cat. Interested in the measurements of the tiger skull.
Sorry I dont have anything more accurate, but I gave it my best shot with what I had. I may or may not have measured the right thing but have attached photos so you can see:
Approx. 174mm high Approx. 33mm last molar Approx. 235-240mm wide Approx. 290mm condylobassal length Approx. 340mm greatest length
Many thanks, Jonathan. Excellent. A few remarks:
1 - Pm4. The length should be measured at the outer tips of both edges, not at the insertion in the upper jaw. I should have been more accurate about that in my post. Apologies. Could you give it another try? 2 - Condylobasal length. At about 290,00 mm., the skull seems to be average (a tad shorter). In adult male tiger skulls, the difference between condylobasal length and greatest total length ranges between 35,00 and 60,00 mm. As the last part of the sagittal crest is missing, we can't be sure about the greatest total length. However, the photographs suggest 340,00 mm. could be about right for greatest total length. 3 - Weight. I would be very interested in the weight of the skull. Any scale would do. You could weigh both parts (upper skull and mandibula) seperately. 4 - Rostrum. See if you can give it a try. Same for the width of the upper canines. Would be appreciated. Skulls of wild male Indian tigers, depending on the sample, average between 345,00 and 355,00 mm. in greatest total length. Your skull is a bit shorter, but the owner very probably wasn't full-grown when he was killed. If he would have been older, chances are the skull would have been about average. It definitely would have been a bit wider. In height, however, the skull, as a result of the vault, could be a bit over par. It also seems to be muscular and robust. All in all, I'd say roundabout average. Skulls of wild male Indian tigers are rare. Take care and many thanks on behalf of all of us. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |