Experience with Wild Cats

[peter]

(07-02-2014, 10:03 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Also Peter, did you ever have a chance to compare captive and wild Bengal skulls? I know you stated they were denser than other species, was there any different between captive and wild?
 

As I'm still working on the tables, I can't offer any details at the moment. In general (all big cats), wild skulls are a bit longer, narrower across the arches, more elevated at the orbit, very smooth in appearance (no superfluous growths anywhere) and more massive and heavier as a result of a high bone density. The teeth are usually larger, wider and stronger than in captive skulls. In large species and large (male) skulls, the difference between wild and captive is usually more pronounced than in smaller species and smaller skulls.

Lion skulls seem to be more affected by captivity than tiger skulls. Captive lion skulls are quite a bit wider, relatively flatter and more rugged than wild skulls. In spite of all the extra growths, they are not as heavy as wild skulls. Same in general terms in tigers, but less outspoken.

The Indian tiger skulls I saw were shorter than lion and Amur skulls, but relatively more massive. Watch the word 'relatively'. In absolutes, lion skulls top the list in most departments. Male tiger skulls of large subspecies, averagewise, have a wider rostrum, longer and larger canines and a more massive (not larger or higher) sagittal crest. I don't know why Indian skulls are relatively massive, but it is seen in both captive and wild skulls.

Skulls, generally speaking, seem to confirm what is seen in photographs. Lions have relatively and absolutely large skulls and a big front (shoulder, chest and spine), but they lack the mass seen in tigers of similar size. This, however, is only true in Indian tigers. The differences between lions and other tiger subspecies seem to be very limited.  Reply