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

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-24-2014, 02:20 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:

(04-24-2014, 01:11 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: What a massive tiger. 61'' chest and 24'' forearm. Skull is shorter, but wider and taller.
Body is 8'' shorter, we would have to know the tail length to make a estimate. Did he weigh the 10'4'' tiger?


 

Sadly, Hawkins did not weight any of his two tigers, so we can only guess in base of the chest girth. In this case, the short one is probably the heavier and with that chest girth, a weight over 250 kg is practically sure.

Other sad point, he did not measured the tails of these two tigers, but if we stick to the fact that normally, the tail of the tiger is 1/3 of the total length (Mazák, 1981), we can estimate a head-body length of c.196 cm for the short one and c.210 cm for the long one. However, something tells me that the short tiger had in fact a very short tail. Sadly, we will never know.
 

---

(04-24-2014, 01:29 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Based on that ratio, then "Amur" from the Duisburg Zoo must have the entire canine length of minimum 17cm and maximum 21cm.

Can't believe how impressive when his canines were shown as the whole.


 

If we see the photo of that huge tiger, the head is huge and the muzzle is really big. I think that 21 cm is too extream for a tiger, even for a captive. Maybe the canines were up to 17 cm and the crown length was longer than a normal tiger. I could be wrong, I am just been conservative.
 

 

Maybe the root isn't much longer, just the crown is longer.

Since "Amur" might have a 43cm skull, while this tiger has a 40cm skull. So perhaps "Amur" has the canine root a bit longer.

Maybe "Amur" has 18cm upper canines which are already comparable to that of Homotherium. Reply