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

[peter]

(11-06-2015, 10:47 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @tigerluver, is the crown height from the gum line or from the skull?

Assume that Christiansen's Amur specimens were measured when they were still alive.

So 78 / ((59.0 + 59.4) / 2) * ((334.2 + 337.8) / 2 ) = 442.7 mm in CBL.

Then this fang belongs to a specimen that rivals the largest Pleistocene lion in term of the skull size.

Remember I measured the length of the upper canines from the tip to the insertion in the upper jaw in a straight line. Also remember information on the length of upper canines in one tiger subspecies can't be used for extrapolations. The reason is there are slight differences between subspecies. Same for the (size and shape of the) orbit. 

In absolutes, captive Amur tigers have the longest, but the upper canines of Sumatrans could be relatively (upper canines divided by condylobasal length) longer. Canines of wild animals usually are longer than those of their captive relatives. The main difference, however, is in the width at the insertion: wild animals have more robust teeth.

When we would start a debate on (the shape, size and function of) canines, we would have to include the (length and shape of the) maxillary bone as well. I would also advice to include the position and use of canines. In some big cats, the angle is nearly straight, whereas it is different in others. Lions usually have shorter canines and larger molars than tigers. The most likely reason is the teeth are used in a slightly different way.

An interesting question is why Amur tigers have oversized skulls and canines when it is known that Indian tigers (and lions) face and hunt larger animals. Today's Amurs face a lot of competition from hunters, but two centuries ago they didn't hunt very large ungulates as well. The reason is Manchuria and southeast Russia never had them. Not in the last thousands of years, that is. But bears and wild boars were and still are plentiful. Reply