WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Extinct Animals
›
Pleistocene Big Cats
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
|
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
|
Alright, here's a round-up.
Tooth 1 is 13.3 cm long (straight line), and 128 grams. Tooth 2 is 9.6 cm long (straight line), and 46 grams.  *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 Note that the camera setting for Btm view of Tooth 1 was with a big Depth of Field, hence it looks narrower than it really is.  (09-27-2015, 09:51 AM)sanjay Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws , What you are asking is not possible through any photo editing software including photoshop. You can only change the angle of entire image but not the subject in it (in your case it is canine). Changing the angle of image means you can rotate the entire image from vertical to horizontal or vice versa. Yes, it is true, no PS software can do that. BTW, I already know that the Thai fossil canine is 100% a tiger canine taken from a different angle. (09-27-2015, 11:40 AM)Fieryeel Wrote: Alright, here's a round-up. Great, so it is the same two tiger teeth you showed before, right? From the anterior perspective, it does look like big cat for sure, and it will show you more pics of tiger teeth taken in that angle. (09-27-2015, 06:24 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Great, so it is the same two tiger teeth you showed before, right Yes, it's the same two teeth I showed. Interesting that there's such a size variation between the two.
It could be a large male and a small female/juvenile.
BTW, I have a lot of tiger teeth pics taken from the anterior perspective, and I will show you later. Edit: I am leaning toward the juvenile specimen for the smaller one because its bluntness, since the adults would have very angular and sharp crown. 
Those images are perfect @Fieryeel, thanks for sharing them.
@GrizzlyClaws, I remember that you have the weights of some of the (sub)fossils and modern teeth. Could you also posts those with the assigned lengths all in one for reference?
Yes, and the teeth should be distinguished with the young specimen and the old specimen.
The young specimens have cavity inside, but the old specimens are fully solid. Most fossil and subfossil teeth should belong to the old specimens as they are extremely dense and heavy.
Amur subfossil, old specimen
length: 15.5 cm weight: 168.3 grams  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Amur, young specimen
length: 13 cm weight: 90.6 grams  *This image is copyright of its original author
Amur, old specimen
length: 12 cm weight: 81.53 grams  *This image is copyright of its original author
Amur, young specimen
length: 12 cm weight: 62.34 grams  *This image is copyright of its original author
unknown tiger subspecies, old specimen
length: 9.9 cm weight: 56.64 grams  *This image is copyright of its original author
unknown tiger subspecies, old specimen
length: 11 cm weight: 70 grams  *This image is copyright of its original author
unknown tiger subspecies, old specimen
length: 9.9 cm weight: 52.6 grams  *This image is copyright of its original author
Thanks @GrizzlyClaws. I was looking for the masses as I wanted to compare canine densities. The formula I use to calculate density is: density = canine mass/(canine length)^3, units g/cm^3.
In order, from posts 485-491: Post 485: Density = 0.0452 Post 486: Density = 0.0412 Post 487: Density = 0.0472 Post 488: Density = 0.0361 Post 489: Density = 0.0584 Post 490: Density = 0.0526 Post 491: Density = 0.0542 @Fieryeel's larger canine: Density = 0.0520 @Fieryeel's smaller canine: Density = 0.0520 It's interesting to see how the young specimen's tooth is so light, although this is to be expected, as mammals put on mass without dimensionally increasing in size. The modern, old specimens look to be quite dense. @Fieryeel's canine are essentially the same density, I'm not sure whether this is a product of the fossilization, identity, or both. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 5 Guest(s) |