|
Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws
|
@GrizzlyClaws:
In fact I wanted to know if there is a small difference between the lions' and tigers' canines weights since I have read (from PCKTS I believe) that the tigers have the densest fangs... Thanks to this thread I learnt that the lion's canines were narrower at the bottom. Thus it would involve that of equal size, the tiger's canines would be a little bit heavier. But I believe the difference, if it really exists, would be very, very small.  (10-30-2016, 03:26 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws:I'm not sure about density but if you compare lion and tiger canines, a tigers will be larger at the root and thus I think that at equal length the tiger may still posess heavier canines. There is just more canine "top to bottom." But grizzly knows far better than I. 
The densest tiger canine holotype I acquired so far in my samples is a 4 inches/70 grams Amur tiger lower canine.
That's 40% heavier than an older male lion canine at the same length. I also look for heavier lion canine holotype if it is available.  (10-30-2016, 04:02 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The densest tiger canine holotype I acquired so far in my samples is a 4 inches/70 grams Amur tiger lower canine. It would make sense from an evolutionary point of view that the tiger would have larger canines compared to the lion. In order for a tiger to take down large prey by itself, it would make intuitive sense that a tiger would need larger canines to kill larger prey on its own. Even though lions can surely go after just as big game as tiger (e.g. Cape buffalo), they don't need to have the super sized canines because they have a pride to do the work for them. The same can be said for Smilodon fatalis for example, as the prey got bigger, the need to have bigger canines and claws developed. You don't need big teeth if you don't need them. A tiger being alone hunting a large 1000 kg Gaur for example needs those teeth. Also, of course, as the teeth get larger, the root also needs to grow to support those stresses. Sadly, the information available on claw size is rather limited. However Chris Heiden of the Institute for Greatly Endangered and Rare Species in an email gave me a few measurements of Tiger, lion and Liger claws and told me that tiger claws a slightly larger then lions. The claws of Ligers are 25% larger then lions or tigers he says. The question I want to ask, how do Jaguars and Leopards compare?
@GrizzlyClaws:
About #258: 40 % heavier, it's a lot ! It would mean that this difference isn't due to the narrower bottom of the lion's canine (involving a little bit smaller volume), but more likely to a real bigger tiger's fang density itself. (10-30-2016, 04:18 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote:(10-30-2016, 04:02 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The densest tiger canine holotype I acquired so far in my samples is a 4 inches/70 grams Amur tiger lower canine. Jaguar and leopard both have canine max at 4 inches, but the jaguar canine is just much more robust. As for the claws, both lion and tiger seem to have 7 cm at max, and I haven't seen any big cat breaking that benchmark because the oversized claws cannot be fully retractable. (10-30-2016, 04:21 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws: Based on the length, that lower canine likely belongs to an average male Amur tiger. However, only its density is ridiculously high. Most likely due it is a very robust canine in proportion, e.g. length/width proportion. If you let the width divided by the length, with any canine hits the ratio of 0.3, then it is an extremely robust one. The more robustness it got, the likely higher density. The density of 4 inches/50 grams most likely belongs to the normal solid male lion canine at the length/width ratio around 0.25. If there is any lion canine with the ratio at 0.3, then it would also likely turn out to be heavier/denser.
Here at the post #90 is a holotype of a set of three lion canines (two upper and one lower) with all details available.
http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-big-cat-s-canines-and-claws?page=6 Here at the post #137 is the densest holotype available for the tiger canine. And it has been weighed at 67 grams, but this canine has been worn a lot. So without it, it should weigh around 70 grams. http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-big-cat-s-canines-and-claws?page=10 If we compare these two holotypes, the length/width ratio for lion is 0.27, and the length/width ratio for tiger is 0.31. Maybe @tigerluver could make an elaborate calculation/formula to explain the volume/density difference between the two holotypes?
@Kingtheropod:
About #259: Very interesting your explanations. We can indeed conceive that the tiger, being exclusively solitary hunter, needs longer canines in order to neutralize some big preys. Being a solitary hunter too, he cannot risk getting wounded. Amazing fact: how a liger does he have a significantly longer claw than both lions and tigers ? Of course this beast is the biggest big cat we could imagine, but this is not a specy, an animal specy with an history, being a link in the natural history of the evolution... The liger is just an hybrid created by the humans with nothing related to the "struggle for life" inside their genes. Paradox !  (10-30-2016, 04:40 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:Jaguars are apex predators of their eco system. They also love water and hunt in water too. For this they need to have more robust canines to withhold slipping and escaping prey(for some prey they don't find grip to hold them). They regularly seem to kill caimans too. To hold such strong prey in jaws till their death is no easier task. They also target head region that is tougher to hold a grip on than the neck region that is relatively easy to pierce their canines into it and also relatively tender than head as skull comes into place. Its just opinion. Sorry if I misinterpreted this topic.(10-30-2016, 04:18 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote:(10-30-2016, 04:02 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The densest tiger canine holotype I acquired so far in my samples is a 4 inches/70 grams Amur tiger lower canine.
Does anyone have information on cougars' canines? That would be interesting to know if predators which target head region have more robust canines? Also being alpha predators seem to make canines more robust? Do the Persian and srilankan leapords have more robust canines than other leapords? Or is it that alpha predators that love water or have expertise in hunting in water too in addition to on land have more robust canines?
(10-30-2016, 12:38 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Kingtheropod: I haven't seen any lion or tiger claw got anything more than 2.75 inches without pulling the nail. There is a holotype of a 16.75 inches liger skull with 5.625 inches canines, that's almost an inch shorter than the largest tiger canine. However, there is chance of having larger and undiscovered liger specimens.
@parvez
- The densest jaguar canine is close to the densest tiger canine in term of the density. Their canines are also blunter in comparison, I wonder if this is also an evolutionary trait that designated to pierce through the skull of its preys. - I haven't seen much of their extracted canines from the skull, but as a member of the felinae, their canines are not as impressive compared to the members of the pantherinae. (10-30-2016, 08:30 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @parvezThanks for the reply grizzly claws. I expected the same density result as both are near invincible in both water and on land. I think you are right the trait of piercing through skull must have made them blunt in comparison of other aspects. Among felinae for their size they may be having impressive canines as I still do believe piercing through skull is not as easy as done through neck.
@parvez
- The density of the canine is based on the volume and solidness. The robust canine is denser than the slender canine, and the solid canine is denser than the hollow canine. The robustness of canine depends among different individuals or gender, while the hollowness depends on the age of the individuals, the older individuals always got less cavity inside. - As for the leopard which I forgot to answer previously, all leopard canines seem to be slender so far which I have yet to see a particularly robust specimen. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |