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

[GuateGojira]

(09-15-2015, 04:44 AM)peter Wrote: Hello Guate! Good to see you. You got the job you were after?

As to how to measure the greatest total length and the condylobasal length. This is from Pocock (1939, pp. 203):

" ... Total length is the length from the tip of the occipital crest to the front edge of the premaxillae; the condylobasal length is to the same point from the hind border of the occipital condyle ... ".

The incisors of the upper skull shouldn't be incorporated, that is.

I would want to see another photograph of the tape and the zygomatic arches to get to an opinion. The skull, however, is quite elevated at the orbit and also seems to be robust. We will have to wait for the weight to get to an opinion.

That is weird, is the first time that I see this case. All the other documents that I have saw, including Mazák and all the prehistoric cats, do take in count the space of the incisors. As they use calipers, there is no danger to exaggerate the actual length. In this case, I guess that the real condylobasal lengths of Pocock were somewhat larger than what he reports.

Edit: @peter, the front edge of the premaxillae do include the space of the incisors, there is no problem with Pocock. Check this image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Check measurement No. 1, this is the correct form to take the condylobasal length, as far I understand. it includes the space of the incisors. Reply