Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[Thebingthing]

Skin from tiger above whose skull i photographed:
   
   

Skin length (including head and tail) approx. 285cm
   
   

Width across back legs approx. 196cm
   

Width across centre of belly approx. 111cm
   

Width across 'underarm' of forelegs approx. 104cm
   

Width across front legs approx. 224cm
   
    Reply

[GuateGojira]

AMAZING!!! Excellent work @Thebingthing, great work. I also see that @peter is here too, that is great, he is a real expert in this issues.

Well, from what I see here, the skull dimensions are these:
Greatest skull length: c.340 mm.
Condylobasal length: 299 mm.
Bizygomatic breath: 240 mm.
Height: 174 mm.

The greatest skull length could be somewhat longer, as the crest is broken. The condylobasal is larger, because you didn't take in count the incisors, I did it in a Photoshop image and the result was the one above.

In fact, the skull is slightly smaller than the average (based in Mazák (1983)), but still range in the dimensions of a male Bengal tiger.

Congratulations, you have a great specimen at hand. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

By judging the canine tooth, this is not a young tiger.

A young tiger would have smooth texture at the root of the canine tooth (with cavity inside), while this one got pretty rough texture which means the canine tooth is fully solid.

I think this male is just a bit above the average.

PS, to demonstrate the total length of the canine tooth in ratio to the skull length is also helpful to me, thank you. Reply

[Thebingthing]

Smaller tiger for which the skull is still in the rug (unknown origin, and unknown which subspecies given size or whether juvenile).
As a rug this will have had some trimming to attempt to make symettrical etc


   

Length (including head and tail) approx. 255cm
   
   

Width across forelegs approx. 174cm
   

Width of 'underarms' of forelegs approx. 80cm
   

Width of belly approx. 68cm
   

Width across back legs approx. 161cm
   

Unable to ascertain size of teeth, but as you can see extremely small teeth and skull for this tiger:
   
    Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

This one is clearly a juvenile, as he/she just got swapped its milk teeth for the adult teeth. Reply

[Thebingthing]

Thanks so much @GuateGojira and @GrizzlyClaws. Its great to find out more about it, so I appreciate your reviews and expertise

Reply

[Thebingthing]

(09-15-2015, 04:22 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: This one is clearly a juvenile, as he/she just got swapped its milk teeth for the adult teeth.

Would you still say its a Bengal? If it is a juvenile then I assume it could be, but wondered if it may be something else - I have found it a bit difficult to determine from any pattern markings. Reply

[peter]

Hello Guate! Good to see you. You got the job you were after?

As to how to measure the greatest total length and the condylobasal length. This is from Pocock (1939, pp. 203):

" ... Total length is the length from the tip of the occipital crest to the front edge of the premaxillae; the condylobasal length is to the same point from the hind border of the occipital condyle ... ".

The incisors of the upper skull shouldn't be incorporated, that is.

I would want to see another photograph of the tape and the zygomatic arches to get to an opinion. The skull, however, is quite elevated at the orbit and also seems to be robust. We will have to wait for the weight to get to an opinion. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

If it is an adult specimen of a small tiger subspecies, then it must have much larger canine teeth than this one.

And the stripe pattern is reminiscent to that of the Bengal tiger to me. Reply

[Thebingthing]

Weight of tiger skull is 1.766kg with missing single upper canine.

Single upper canine weighed separately is 62g.

Total skull weight if it had the upper canine would therefore be 1.828kg Reply

[GuateGojira]

(09-15-2015, 04:44 AM)peter Wrote: Hello Guate! Good to see you. You got the job you were after?

As to how to measure the greatest total length and the condylobasal length. This is from Pocock (1939, pp. 203):

" ... Total length is the length from the tip of the occipital crest to the front edge of the premaxillae; the condylobasal length is to the same point from the hind border of the occipital condyle ... ".

The incisors of the upper skull shouldn't be incorporated, that is.

I would want to see another photograph of the tape and the zygomatic arches to get to an opinion. The skull, however, is quite elevated at the orbit and also seems to be robust. We will have to wait for the weight to get to an opinion.

That is weird, is the first time that I see this case. All the other documents that I have saw, including Mazák and all the prehistoric cats, do take in count the space of the incisors. As they use calipers, there is no danger to exaggerate the actual length. In this case, I guess that the real condylobasal lengths of Pocock were somewhat larger than what he reports.

Edit: @peter, the front edge of the premaxillae do include the space of the incisors, there is no problem with Pocock. Check this image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Check measurement No. 1, this is the correct form to take the condylobasal length, as far I understand. it includes the space of the incisors. Reply

[Thebingthing]

(09-15-2015, 03:52 AM)peter Wrote: 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.

Hi peter,

I'm sorry but I am not clear on the pm4 or rostrum measurements - am happy to get them but not sure exactly what is needed, apologies if I'm being dumb.

Skull weight is 1.766kg (missing upper canine) and 0.062kg for the remaining upper canine - so total of 1.828kg. Mandibula on its own is 0.606kg.

Hope that helps. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(09-15-2015, 05:00 AM)Thebingthing Wrote: Weight of tiger skull is 1.766kg with missing single upper canine.

Single upper canine weighed separately is 62g.

Total skull weight if it had the upper canine would therefore be 1.828kg

The canine tooth from your tiger skull has helped me how to distinguish the shape of the Bengal tiger's canine teeth from other tiger subspecies'.

This must also be a Bengal fang, since it is very similar to yours.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Thebingthing]

(09-15-2015, 05:25 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(09-15-2015, 05:00 AM)Thebingthing Wrote: Weight of tiger skull is 1.766kg with missing single upper canine.

Single upper canine weighed separately is 62g.

Total skull weight if it had the upper canine would therefore be 1.828kg

The canine tooth from your tiger skull has helped me how to distinguish the shape of the Bengal tiger's canine teeth from other tiger subspecies'.

This must also be a Bengal fang, since it is very similar to yours.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Awesome! Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

Just check my thread, and you will find out the different types of the big cat canine teeth.

http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-big-cat-s-canines-and-claws Reply