WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
|
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
|
Is there any size difference in canines between lions and tigers ?
From what I've seen there isn't any at least in male specimens  (09-19-2017, 05:34 AM)Michael Wrote: Is there any size difference in canines between lions and tigers ? It depends on which type of lion, the Cave lion's canines are Amur tiger-sized, while the African lion's canines are Indochinese tiger-sized. (09-19-2017, 05:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:I was refering to the African lions maybe in a comparison side by side there are visible differences but they really seem similar in size maybe the tigers canines are thicker ?(09-19-2017, 05:34 AM)Michael Wrote: Is there any size difference in canines between lions and tigers ?  (09-19-2017, 07:02 AM)Michael Wrote:Tiger canines(Amur and Bengal) are a bit longer in comparison.(09-19-2017, 05:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:I was refering to the African lions maybe in a comparison side by side there are visible differences but they really seem similar in size maybe the tigers canines are thicker ?(09-19-2017, 05:34 AM)Michael Wrote: Is there any size difference in canines between lions and tigers ? (09-19-2017, 07:02 AM)Michael Wrote: I was refering to the African lions maybe in a comparison side by side there are visible differences but they really seem similar in size maybe the tigers canines are thicker ? One of the best visual comparison, male African lion, male Pantanal jaguar, male South China tiger. The canine tooth belongs to a larger male African lion, and the easiest way to distinguish a lion and tiger is the breadth of the root.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Two rare images of similar circumstances, I thought it'd be cool to see them both compared to one another.
S. African Lion in the restroom  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Ustaad in the Guard Shack  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (09-19-2017, 05:28 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:Are there any disadvantages and advantages for having a pantherine or less of a pantherine skull? I think a balance of the 2 is the best, Which seems like what the tiger has?(09-19-2017, 03:50 AM)paul cooper Wrote: How did you come up with this conclusion? What makes a skull pantherine or 'more' pantherine? (09-19-2017, 05:28 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(09-19-2017, 03:50 AM)paul cooper Wrote: How did you come up with this conclusion? What makes a skull pantherine or 'more' pantherine? I don't necessarily agree with this assessment, I think when looking at a Jaguar, Leopard, Lion and Tiger, they all have different skull formations. Especially looking at the nasal bones, A lion for instance has a flat/convex nasal structure, A tiger has a very convex nasal structure, A jaguar has a concave nasal structure and a leopard in my opinion is more similar to a Tiger than the other 3. The sagital crest is also very different in all panthera. (09-20-2017, 12:11 AM)paul cooper Wrote: Are there any disadvantages and advantages for having a pantherine or less of a pantherine skull? I think a balance of the 2 is the best, Which seems like what the tiger has? Not really, this gives the tiger a unique skull structure which is a bit atypical for the Pantherinae members. It is just a Pantherinae that possesses some morphological features of the Felinae.
@Pckts
I didn't say that the tiger is less pantherine than other Pantherinae members. It is just tiger's shorter facial structure as a single aspect which is closer to that of the Felinae members. However, the canine teeth and sagittal crest are much more developed among tiger, and this is completely different from that of the Felinae. Overall, I would say that tiger's facial structure looks like morphologically a mixture between the Pantherinae and Felinae. It is just ferocious as other Pantherinae members, but it also retains some degree of "cuteness" of the Felinae members. Generally, the Felinae looks cuter than the Pantherinae with a less ferocious looking. For example, most people would only revere the majesty looking of a male lion, but they would never correlate the male lion with the term of cuteness. However, many people do correlate the tiger (especially the Amur tiger) with the term of cuteness, not only its fluffy appearance, but also its shorter/rounder facial structure which is closer to that of the Felinae, and it gives people an impression of the cuteness appearance.  (09-19-2017, 05:34 AM)Michael Wrote: Is there any size difference in canines between lions and tigers ? In general, lions have longer skulls (greatest total length) than tigers, whereas tigers have larger canines. This conclusion was confirmed in every article I read. Confirmed at the level of averages, I mean. Tigers of large subspecies have absolutely longer and more robust upper canines than lions. I absolutes, male Amur tigers top the list. In relatives (upper canine length divided by condylobasal skull length), male Sumatran tigers do. As to 'relative'. Adult wild male lions of large subspecies (referring to lions living in central, southern and southwestern parts Africa) range between 165-210 kg. (365-464 lbs.), whereas adult wild male Sumatran tigers range between 80-140 kg. (178-310 lbs.). The heaviest wild male Sumatran tiger was just over 148 kg. (331 lbs.). Skulls of wild male lions range between 340-400 mm. (greatest total length in a straight line), whereas skulls of wild male Sumatran tigers range between 285-335 mm. In spite of the striking difference in size, the upper canines are about similar in length. Why is it that lions have shorter canines? Bones are related to function. If a cat smaller than a lion has upper canines of similar size, they are relatively more important. Lions, although able to hunt large animals on their own, usually hunt in small groups. This means that large canines in order to kill as fast as possible are not needed. What is needed, is a skeleton and a skull able to withstand stress for a prolonged period of time. In many lion skulls, the upper canines are projected forward to a degree. This allows them to pin their victim. Adult tigers hunt on their own. As they can't afford serious injuries, large canines are useful in that they get the job done in very little time. As the canines are used as daggers, they often are projected downward. The acute angle is a result of the need to kill as fast as possible. As lions and tigers use their canines in a different way, their skull adapted. Lion skulls are relatively flat and built to withstand stress. The tip of the mandibula usually is pointed upward. This, in combination with the upper jaw, results in a lock. Lions skulls are dominated by horizontal lines and flattish curves. Tiger skulls developed to generate maximum force at the tip of the canines. This is why tiger canines are longer and generally more robust than lions canines and this is why tiger skulls, at least in the facial part, are more vaulted. In order to prevent fractures when applying maximum pressure, the rostrum was strengthened. This is why lion 'snouts' are more or less straight and why tiger 'snouts' often widen towards the canines. In general, tiger skulls serve as anchors for large canines. As the pressure is projected downward, vertical lines and acute angles dominate. Tiger mandibulas are nearly always shorter than lion mandibulas and either straight or concave. At a glance. a - Wild male lion (Kalahari) top and captive Amur tiger bottom. Both adult males. Amur tiger skull a bit longer. Mandibula: tiger straight and lion convex. Face: lion longer and flatter. Angles: more acute in the tiger. Upper canines: longer and heavier in the tiger. Pressure lines: more vertical in the tiger skull. Robustness: about similar. Function: one is a powerful locker (lion) and the other a powerful biter (tiger):  *This image is copyright of its original author
The total length of the lion canine teeth are usually less than 1/3 of the GSL, at least it is the case for the Pleistocene lions.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
@Pckts :Two deserted houses in two different countries: one is dry and arid, the second much more wet as we can guess.
The tiger has a more compact body and seems more furtive, more "stressed", while the lion has a more emaciated body, and walks with the head up. At #34, in this topic, you told "Get out there and see the places where your favorite animals live, you'll learn more than you can ever learn behind a screen". Nod ! (09-20-2017, 03:21 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: For example, most people would only revere the majesty looking of a male lion, but they would never correlate the male lion with the term of cuteness. However, many people do correlate the tiger (especially the Amur tiger) with the term of cuteness, not only its fluffy appearance, but also its shorter/rounder facial structure which is closer to that of the Felinae, and it gives people an impression of the cuteness appearance. I think the rounder features are more along the line of Leopard and Jaguars, a lion's longer muzzle and mane take away from the "rounder features" that you determine as cute. When you see both in the wild, there is no cuteness about them though, both have a serious and dangerous look, Tigers have a much more uneasy feeling, you can't take your eyes off of them because you feel their unpredictable nature, Lions have an uninterested confidence, you forget that you're looking at a Killing machine and get caught up in their easy going nature. Both can turn in the drop of a hat but they present it in very different ways. (09-20-2017, 11:09 PM)Pckts Wrote: I think the rounder features are more along the line of Leopard and Jaguars, a lion's longer muzzle and mane take away from the "rounder features" that you determine as cute. The Amur tiger got the roundest feature overall, since their muzzle is proportionally the broadest of all big cats. BTW, the male lion's appearance is in line with their nature; it is a dangerous powerful beast with a rough look. However, the Amur tiger's appearance can be deceptive to their nature; it is a dangerous powerful beast with a somewhat cute and housecat look. I also think the Amur tiger with its rounder facial structure and fluffy coat is "cuter" than the Bengal tiger which reminds you a housecat, but they are just equally as lethal and dangerous. That's why many people also used to underestimate the potential lethality of the giant panda. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 13 Guest(s) |