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

[GrizzlyClaws]

@tigerluver, is the crown height from the gum line or from the skull?

Assume that Christiansen's Amur specimens were measured when they were still alive.

So 78 / ((59.0 + 59.4) / 2) * ((334.2 + 337.8) / 2 ) = 442.7 mm in CBL.

Then this fang belongs to a specimen that rivals the largest Pleistocene lion in term of the skull size. Reply

[tigerluver]

"The measurements used were: crown height in a straight line from the alveolar margin to the apex," so it should be from the point of insertion into the skull as below:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

Wow, then the skull of the giant fang is even larger.

But the Amur skull in peter's collection is 71.9 mm (crown height from the skull), and its GSL is 368.6 mm.

With the peter's Amur skull, it should be 90 / 71.9 * 368.6 = 461.4 mm in GSL. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

The owner of that giant fang is an online tooth seller, and she routinely sells the big cat fangs (mostly from the captive tigers) that ranged from 4" to 5".

But she refuses to sell this one even at $10000, which is entirely for her personal collection. Reply

[tigerluver]

Wow, it would be unrealistically large if we use Christiansen's specimen, good choice sticking with Peter's. There is likely a good chance the tiger was a "sabertooth tiger,' but even then it must've have at least a very large head. I'm assuming its recent, correct? Would it be from a farm? Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

This fang cannot be a sabertooth fang for some following reasons:

1. It is not a fossil at all, but a fresh tooth in the very recent time.

2. The shape of the fang is very robust & conical which is clearly a pantherine cat, more specifically the Amur tiger.


This fang has blown everything else out of water, including the Cave lion and liger.

But it is clearly a real Amur fang, otherwise its owner wouldn't treasure it like this. Reply

[tigerluver]

You got me wrong. I meant that as a play on words of the term of "sabertooth tiger" (which doesn't exist), as in this tiger may've had some relatively huge canines. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

I've heard the rumor that the Harbin breeding center used to harvest the canines and claws from the dead specimens.

Since most captive tigers used to live long enough, that's why the canines in the Chinese market are mostly fully solid.

Even the aged captive specimens still have their canines in good shape and condition, unlike the elderly wild specimens that either lost their canines or being badly worn down. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(11-06-2015, 11:42 AM)tigerluver Wrote: You got me wrong. I meant that as a play on words of the term of "sabertooth tiger" (which doesn't exist), as in this tiger may've had some relatively huge canines.

A tiger with relatively long canine & smaller skull must look like clouded leopard, as his skull isn't massive enough to hold the really massive fangs, but his fangs are grown to be longer and thinner in proportion.

But this fang is super massive, its width is 5 cm and 4.3-4.4 cm at the gum line base.

It needs a massive skull to host such massive fangs. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(11-06-2015, 11:34 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Wow, it would be unrealistically large if we use Christiansen's specimen, good choice sticking with Peter's. There is likely a good chance the tiger was a "sabertooth tiger,' but even then it must've have at least a very large head. I'm assuming its recent, correct? Would it be from a farm?

Here I am using V. Mazak's specimen.

90 / 74.5 * 383 = 462.685 mm

The outcome is quite similar to peter's specimen. Reply

[peter]

(11-06-2015, 10:04 AM)tigerluver Wrote: I agree that pre-20th century data are likely iffy. However, the 1900s are quite close to us in methodology. They had fully functioning cameras, scales, and a sense of uniformity when providing data.

The hunter bias is a possibility, but it goes back to the my original point. Hopefully, in a sample of say 10 cats, one can hope only 1 has been tampered with. Again, hunted Bengal tigers actually seem a bit smaller, so I don't think it is an issue. The Amur database was around 7-9 I believe in Kerley et al., so any tampering would hurt there. However, these researchers were okay with such records.

No where did I insinuate that the extreme freaks are representative of a population. Really, what do we consider "representative" of a population when an average cat is more of an ideal type than a reality anyhow. The idea of an average is very much just to give us a new measure of the world in a sense. 

Our lack of experience with an 8 ft. human does not change the fact that they did exist. The ticket to the modern king of giants in cats has probably already been used for the next generations in our lifetimes, so we'll never see it, but back to the aforementioned point. 

The reduction in felid population is an interesting one in terms of size. The relationship between size and density is a strong one, as a well as a resources cofactor. For most endangered, the density is likely lower than before, so the relationship would predict an increase in size, however, you're right that the resources would likely change that.

We could separate this discussion into a new thread, as I think we're getting off topic now. Let me know if you guys would like to start a new thread on the validity of hunting records.

Good debate, interesting topic and relevant as well. Tigerluver, you can start a new thread in the Premier League. My proposal regarding the title would be 'The reliability of hunting records', 'Hunting records and peer-reviewed documents on morphological data' or 'How to approach hunting records'.

We would need a lead post. My proposal is you write it. Remember there are questions on both hunting records and peer-reviewed documents. If the good Dr. Panthera agrees, we could start with the exchange between you and him in this thread and continue from there. A part of the recent debate on methods could be included. Reply

[peter]

(11-06-2015, 10:47 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @tigerluver, is the crown height from the gum line or from the skull?

Assume that Christiansen's Amur specimens were measured when they were still alive.

So 78 / ((59.0 + 59.4) / 2) * ((334.2 + 337.8) / 2 ) = 442.7 mm in CBL.

Then this fang belongs to a specimen that rivals the largest Pleistocene lion in term of the skull size.

Remember I measured the length of the upper canines from the tip to the insertion in the upper jaw in a straight line. Also remember information on the length of upper canines in one tiger subspecies can't be used for extrapolations. The reason is there are slight differences between subspecies. Same for the (size and shape of the) orbit. 

In absolutes, captive Amur tigers have the longest, but the upper canines of Sumatrans could be relatively (upper canines divided by condylobasal length) longer. Canines of wild animals usually are longer than those of their captive relatives. The main difference, however, is in the width at the insertion: wild animals have more robust teeth.

When we would start a debate on (the shape, size and function of) canines, we would have to include the (length and shape of the) maxillary bone as well. I would also advice to include the position and use of canines. In some big cats, the angle is nearly straight, whereas it is different in others. Lions usually have shorter canines and larger molars than tigers. The most likely reason is the teeth are used in a slightly different way.

An interesting question is why Amur tigers have oversized skulls and canines when it is known that Indian tigers (and lions) face and hunt larger animals. Today's Amurs face a lot of competition from hunters, but two centuries ago they didn't hunt very large ungulates as well. The reason is Manchuria and southeast Russia never had them. Not in the last thousands of years, that is. But bears and wild boars were and still are plentiful. Reply

[genao87]

Very interesting Guate on the Bengal and Amur figures.   As time passed, the Bengal Tiger it seems got larger while the Siberian/Amur Tiger got smaller...despite both being hunted to almost extinction.

So the Bengal Tiger is the largest subspecies. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

@peter, the captive fangs are usually in better shape and condition as they were used to feed on those softer foods such as the prepared meat and chicken.

The wild big cats on the other hand have to chew on the thick hide and tough bone on a daily basis.

The wild fangs are usually more worn down and show the mark of an old warrior.

The captive fangs look neat and better in shape, but they don't feel like a noble veteran like the wild fangs. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(11-06-2015, 05:17 PM)peter Wrote: An interesting question is why Amur tigers have oversized skulls and canines when it is known that Indian tigers (and lions) face and hunt larger animals. Today's Amurs face a lot of competition from hunters, but two centuries ago they didn't hunt very large ungulates as well. The reason is Manchuria and southeast Russia never had them. Not in the last thousands of years, that is. But bears and wild boars were and still are plentiful.

My hypothesis about this phenomenon, posted many times here, is that the large size of the skull and canines of the Amur tiger is an adaptation for the predation on wild boars and even bison.

Let's remember that Amur tigers are no other thing that the western population of the Caspian tigers, which invaded the Caspian region about 10,000 years ago. This tigers specialized in the hunt of wild boars, which in those areas were very large and robust, probably even more dangerous than a large bovids. In this area also exited the European bison and tigers probably hunt them. Under this circumstances, Caspian tigers needed to adapt to this new large prey with stronger skulls and larger sagital crests. This new adaptation was also kept by the "new" Amur population that also hunted large wild boars and that now had the competition of large bears.

If we compare these situations, the tigers in the south east of Asia (India included) did not hunt on "giant" boars (except in some cases in Nepal) and do not have large sized competitors. So, in a wide point of view, this could explain why Amur tigers are so robust and although now they weight as much as African lions, in the past, the large Amur tigers reached the same body weight than Bengal ones and certainly they measure the same in body size. Reply