|
Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws
|
@peter
By using the Barbary lion skull as the holotype, the skull should be around 38.8 cm.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Interesting, Grizzly. You could well be right.
There is a positive relation between greatest total skull length and upper canine length in big cats, but I never read anything about it. My guess is it could be expressed in a formula of some kind. It's very likely that the formula will be different in every species. I might give it a try, but I only measured the distance between the tip and the insertion in the upper jaw (not the entire length of the canine). In lions, the longest I measured was 67 mm. from the insertion to the tip. The greatest length of the skull was 378,00 mm (condylobasal length 326,00 mm. and zygomatic width 248,20 mm.). The owner of the skull was a captive male with a total length of 300,7 cm. in a straight line (head and body 216,7 cm. and tail 84,0 cm.). This records stands, as he was measured by Dr. P. van Bree himself (in 1974). This giant was 280 kg (...) and probably compared to the lion WaveRiders saw in Kenia. My guess is the Kenian lion could have had a longer skull, as skulls of captive big cats usually are a bit shorter than those of their wild relatives. Judging from the photographs WaveRiders posted, the skull of the Kenian was more robust and heavier. The weight of the skull of the captive lion was 2,450 kg., but it wasn't defatted.
Normally, the skull/body weight ratio for a wild male big cat should be around 1:100, since the captive big cat have higher percentage of body fat, so the ratio could be even greater. I did ask Waverider about the canines measurement of the Kenyan giant, but he refused to provide anything. However, I am quite sure that the Kenyan skull should be quite similar to the two aforementioned skulls in the scale.
In a basic formula, a fully solid 10 cm lion canine should weigh about 50 gr, let's say a 40 cm large male skull with 12 cm canine. A single upper canine would probably weigh over 85 gr and the skull should weigh over 2500 gr. A 500 pounds lion does have more superior canine compared to a 400 pounds tiger, but it does not compare the magnitude of a 500 pounds tiger's canine. I theorize that by increasing every hundred pound in body mass, the tiger's canine is likely doubling in weight. And this correlation isn't as strong as in lion. I will later find more materials to sustain this claim. 
Wow, these claims are quite compelling.
But I don't think there would be a significant difference in the skull weights of captive and wild cats, maybe just the ratio of skull weight/body weight is the difference? What makes captive cat skulls weigh less than wild cat skulls, assuming a difference in skull weight?
I haven't measured any wild/captive skull by myself, but it is quite possible that the captive big cats under pressure tend to develop some sort of hypogenesis.
According to peter's aforementioned observation, the skulls of the captive big cats usually tend to show some deformities at some degree. Because the lack of the adaption on the artificial environment behind the bars, they didn't get any chance to fully develop the robustness of their skull and canine teeth. That's why I tend to agree with peter that most of those robust skull and canine teeth should belong to the well-developed and well-nourished wild specimens. 
Perhaps the skull weight discrepancy is linked to the fact that physical activity increases bone density. While the skull is not a weight bearing bone, the influx of whatever hormones trigger such increases would certainly reach the osteoblasts in the skull causing the bone density and thus skull weight increase in wild specimens.
I will get you a photo as requested, @GrizzlyClaws .
@tigerluver
Thanks, since your PS skill is much better than mine, so hopefully we can get better PS pics as a complementary part of our discussion.  *This image is copyright of its original author I calculated about 380 mm from this reconstruction.
This particular skull belongs to a Barbary lion, maybe it could have proportionally longer canine teeth than the normal African lions?
Since the Barbary lions were solitary hunters, and they could have evolved with longer canine teeth.
Amur tiger
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
African lion
 *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  *This image is copyright of its original author
Subadult African lion
 *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  *This image is copyright of its original author
Brown bear
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Bengal tiger
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 91 Guest(s) |