There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
10-12-2015, 10:29 AM( This post was last modified: 10-12-2015, 11:03 AM by peter )
AMUR TIGERS
When in Chabarowsk to change for a plain for Kamsjatka, Charlie Russell met with Dr. Alexander Khulikov and Dr. Juri Dunishenko. Although he didn't provide details, I assumed they met in the Chabarowsk Natural History Museum. They showed him the collection. Russell saw a great many skulls of Amur tigers and Amur brown bears. Row after row of skulls, he wrote. They compared the skulls:
" ... Although brown bear skulls were larger, the difference was limited. I never knew a cat could grow to this size ... " ('Grizzly', C. Russell, 2003, pp. 31).
There also is a natural history museum in Vladivostok. It could be someone measured the skulls in these museums, but I never read anything. Just imagine: hundreds and hundreds of skulls of wild Amur tigers and not one document. They were smaller than those of brown bears, but the difference was limited. How limited, nobody knows.
As far as I know, only few skulls of wild Amur tigers were measured. We have the skull in Berlin described by V. Mazak. The skull that, according to WaveRiders, disappeared. We have another skull described by J.H. Mazak in a city in northern China. Both skulls were from Manchuria. Than there's the information about the 3 tigers mentioned in the document of Graves. Two big males with short skulls. And that's about it.
There's more on captive Amur tigers, but not much more. I read a thesis of a German student, now a biologist. She referred to a skull in a Munich museum exceeding 350,00 m. in condylobasal length. Than there is the Christiansen document you discussed. One of the 3 males also exceeded 350,00 mm. in condylobasal length. I measured a few in different museums and that's about it.
Based on what I read, I concluded it is very likely that some skulls exceeded 390,00 mm. and possibly 400,00 mm. in greatest total length, but it's a guess only. If we add that skulls of captive animals usually are not as long as those of wild animals, the conclusion is it is very likely some skulls of male Amur tigers exceeded 400,00 mm. in greatest total length.
INDIAN TIGERS
I posted on the book of Hewett ('Jungle Trails in Northern India', 1938). He referred to a skull of a tiger who taped 10.2 'over curves' (half a day after he was shot by his daughter). The skull of this tiger was cleaned, weighed and measured by a professional taxidermist (Van Ingen). In greatest total length, the skull, not very wide and heavy, was 16,25 inches or 412,79 mm. The Maharajah of Cooch Behar wrote a number of skulls exceeded 15 inches in greatest total length. The longest of these was 15,75 inches or 400,05 mm.
There is a letter of a hunter (Hawkins) in the JBNHS. Written after the Second World War, it proves without a shadow of doubt that some skulls of wild male Indian tigers well exceeded 15 inches, even after 1945. I know of 3 who reached or slighty exceeded 16 inches in greatest total length. I posted a photograph of the skull of the Sauraha tiger. Pocock (1929) reported on a 15-inch skull. Rowland Ward reported on skulls of Indian tigers well exceeding 15 inches.
I made a table with all records I consider as reliable. Indian tigers. Sample size exceeding 100. The average is very close to 360,00 mm. in greatest total length, maybe a bit more. Yes, the table has a number of very large skulls. But it also has skulls well below 330,00 mm. The skulls were not selected for size. All skulls I saw were included.
AFRICAN LIONS
In contrast to tigers, there are plenty of books and articles with good information on skulls. In Kenia, according to B. Patterson ('The Lions of Tsavo', 2004, pp. 115), the longest skull (out of a series of more than 220) was 13,5 inches (342,90 mm.). Patterson wrote this was about average for an adult male lion. He didn't say what he meant, but I assumed he was talking about Africa in general.
In other parts of central Africa, however, the average greatest total length for male skulls is over 14 inches (355,60 mm.) and in southern parts of Africa the average for males could be over 14,50 inches (368,30 mm.). The longest skull I know of was 419,00 mm., but it is likely that some will exceed that mark.
CONCLUSIONS
There's no doubt that lions have longer skulls than tigers. Same for skulls of captive animals. In every museum I visited, the longest skull was a lion skull. I have no idea about the averages of wild lions, but assume the average for all would reach or slightly exceed 14 inches (355,60 mm.). Skulls of Gir lions are a bit shorter, whereas those in southern Africa would range between 14,50 (368,30 mm.) and 14,75 inches (374,65 mm.). Exceptional skulls definitely exceed 16 inches (406,40 mm.). The longest accepted was 16,5 inches (419,10 mm.).
Some skulls of wild male Amur tigers exceeded 15 inches in greatest total length. At least one (Baikov) could have been 16 inches. I have no idea about the average, because only very few were measured. There are no documents at all. We know a bit more about skulls of captive animals, but the number is limited as well. As some skulls exceeded 350,00 mm. in condylobasal length, chances are they reached 390,00-400,00 mm. in greatest total length. V. Mazak (1983) concluded old males averaged over 370,00 mm., but he most probably mixed wild and captive skulls. The longest I saw exceeded 370,00 mm.
At least 3 skulls of wild Indian tigers reached or slightly exceeded 16 inches in greatest total length. There are quite many reports about skulls exceeding 15 inches. The average for many most probably ranges somewhere between 350,00-355,00 mm. in greatest total length. My guess is skulls of wild Indian tigers, although a bit shorter, could be wider and heavier than skulls of wild Amur tigers. Skulls of captive Indian tigers are shorter and relatively very wide. My guess is the average for greatest total length would be below 350,00 mm.
Amur tigers have longer skulls than Indian tigers. The difference, however, is limited (10,00 mm. or a bit more). If skulls of wild male Indian tigers average 350,00-355,00 mm. in greatest total length, those of wild Amur tigers would average 360,00-365,00 mm., maybe a trifle more. Margin of error probably within 10,00 mm.
If we were to construct a table, Kruger skulls most probably top the table. Although slightly shorter, skulls of Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mocambique lions could be as wide, if not wider. Amur tigers are close in size, but they wouldn't be heavier. Skulls of Indian tigers, however, could compare. In extra-large skulls, the difference between both species could be 10,00-15,00 mm. The major difference is lions do it much more often. In museums, tiger skulls exceeding 14 inches in greatest total length are rare. Lions skulls exceeding 15 inches are not.
An extra problem is extra-large tiger skulls are not in museums, whereas lion skulls of 15 inches and over (I measured one slightly over 16 inches) are. I don't know why that is, but it is very likely private collectors could tell you more. It is a great pity.
To conclude. The information of Dr. Hunter is, at least, incomplete. I do not doubt Yamaguchi's info is correct in itself, but correct information can be incomplete or even misleading. Especially when the one collecting is, ehhh, leaning towards a hypothesis? I wonder if he read the JBNHS. Would he and his collegues have visited museums in Russia, China, Japan, India, Vietnam, Cambodja, Thailand, Kazachstan and Azerbeidzjan? Did they try to find private collectors? If I succeeded, others surely can? All in all, regarding tigers, I would get to unsatisfactory.
