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

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-22-2014, 10:16 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I think that I have not explained myself very clear. What I want to say was that from the entire canine, 60% was in the skull and 40% was for the crown. For this last percentage 5-10% would correspond to the gum line, so the canine length measured from the tip to the gum line would be between 30-35% of the canine itself. However, I think that I exaggerated a little and that the gum line will be no more than the 5% of the crown length, which suggest that from a canine, the 35% will correspond to the tooth length from the tip to the gum.

We need data for comparison, at the moment, I don't know of any specimen that have both type of measurements.

 

 

You are right Guate, since the big cat canine proportion might have different ratio based on the diffrent individual.

I posted a such weird question because i am getting pretty intrigued by the canine measurement of the Duisburg Zoo specimen, since Dr. Gewalt measured his canines during the diagnosis, so it is definitely from the gumline. Based on the normal ratio, the entire length of "Amur" canines should be no less than 8 inches, but i never saw a such monstrous canine in the private collection apart from the sabertooth one, even a 6 inches canine is pretty rare to find.

Maybe you are right, those montrous tigers have the canines comparable to that of the Homotherium, while their body remains were much destroyed after their death, so almost none of their body remains have been ended up in the private collection. Reply