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

[johnny rex]

(12-26-2018, 12:25 PM)peter Wrote:

(12-26-2018, 11:33 AM)johnny rex Wrote:

(12-26-2018, 01:00 AM)peter Wrote: HOW TO MEASURE THE GREATEST TOTAL LENGTH OF A TIGER SKULL

The greatest total length of a tiger skull is measured from the tip of the premaxillary bone (just in front of the incisors) to the posterior tip of the occiput. You have to measure the distance between both tips in a straight line.

In order to exclude angles, the mandible has to be removed when you measure the greatest total length of the upper skull. If you don't, the distance will increase.

THE SKULL OF THE TIGER SHOT BY SIR JOHN HEWETT'S DAUGHTER IN JANUARY 1927 

Lorna, the daughter of Sir John Hewett, shot a large tiger close to Morgati in January 1927. Measured the next day, he was 10 feet 2 'over curves'. The measurements of the skull

" ... as given by Messrs. Spicer & Co., of Leamington, who set up the skin, are in their words 'over the bone' as follows:

Length - 16,25 inches.
Breadth - 9 7/8 inches acrfoss the zygomatic arches.
Weight cleaned - 4 lb. 14 oz... " ('Jungle Trails in Northern India', John Hewett, first published in 1938 - I have the 2008 reprint, pp. 180).

It is about the addition 'over the bone'. My guess is the distance from tip to tip was measured following the curves of the skull. This method will increase the measurement quite a bit. This is borne out by the measurement of the zygomatic width and the weight of the skull.

Based on my experience and reliable information of others, it's highly unlikely that a skull with a greatest total length of 16,25 inches of a large male tiger taping 10.2 in total length measured 'over curves' is less than 10 inches in zygomatic width. A skull of that size of a wild tiger also is heavier than 4 lb. 14 oz.

For this reason, the skull in Hewett's book is out regarding greatest total length.       

HEAD LENGTH AND SKULL LENGTH

The difference between head length and greatest total skull length in tigers shows a lot of individual variation.

The 11-year old Prague zoo tiger 'Amur' measured by V. Mazak had a head and body length of 220 cm. in a straight line and a head length of 450 mm., whereas the greatest total length of the skull was 371 mm. The difference between head and skull length, therefore, was 79 mm.

Another, younger, tiger, also measured by V. Mazak, had a head and body length of 201 cm. in a straight line and a head length of 420 mm. The greatest total skull length, however, was 377 mm. The difference between head and skull length was 43 mm. only ('Der Tiger', V. Mazak, 1983, pp. 185 and 193).

The very large Duisburg zoo tiger, estimated at 280-300 kg. in his prime, was 210 cm. in head and body length in a straight line. This tiger had a head length of 50 cm. His skull, as far as I know, wasn't measured. The skull of the Sungari river tiger, also estimated at 300 kg. or more, could have been as long or longer. V. Jankowski wrote his skull was large. As far as I know, it was never measured.

Based on the photographs published in the article discussed in this thread some time ago, the skull of tiger 'Altai' shot in the Koln zoo after he had killed his keeper could have been over 420 mm. in greatest total length. That tiger, with a head and body length of 240 cm. and a tail of 96 cm., was just about 4 years of age. A young adult, that is.

Most photographs of 'Altai' on the internet were taken when he had just arrived in Koln. They suggest he was about average in size when he was less than 3 years old. In the year that followed, he could have added a lot of inches and pounds. 

At the level of species, lions have absolutely and relatively longer skulls than tigers. The longest skulls can exceed 400 mm. in greatest total length. Amur tigers also have long skulls. In relative terms, they seem to compare to lions in this respect. As some captive Amur tigers well exceed 600 pounds, chances are some skulls also exceed 400 mm. in greatest total length. Most skulls of captive adult male Amur tigers, however, range between 345-380 mm. in greatest total length.

1. Okay so the first picture is the reliable way to measure a tiger skull, isn't it? By the way, many people measured big cat skulls by placing it on a table so the skull position look the same like the second picture. If we measure a skull by measuring it using this method by placing the skull on a table and then measure it over a straight line, the result is the measurement will be greater than how the skull is positioned like the first picture.

2. Yeah the 413 mm Bengal tiger skull is not reliable as it is measured over curve not over a straight line, not to mention the width of the skull is too low for a truly 16-inch skull. So, the length of the skull is actually lower than 16 inches.

3. So the skull length of Prague zoo's Amur is almost 8 cm less than its head length. If we follow this skull and head length difference, Duisburg's Amur skull will be 420 mm which is equal to 16.5 inches. But if we follow the skull and head length difference of the younger tiger which is 4 cm difference, the skull of the Duisburg's Amur is 46.6 cm which is equal to 18+ inches.

Yes, most of the available pictures and videos of Altai I've found so far are not from 2012. Most of them are old, from 2011.

Ad 1 - I recently posted this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309320542_Carnivores_Skulls_-_Identification_and_Measurement_-_for_Ecologists. Go to the page with measurements. The next page has an instruction. 

Ad 2 - Yes. The length wasn't measured in a straight line, but over curves. Regarding greatest total length, the skull is out.

Ad 3 - Yes. It depends.

Ad 4 - I don't know in what way tiger 'Altai' was measured. The German biologists and zoologists I know measure big cats in a straight line ('between pegs'). For this reason, I assume he was measured in that way. Most field biologists, however, now measure big cats 'over curves'. It can't be excluded that 'Altai' was measured 'over curves' as well.

Anyhow. If 'Altai' (336 cm. in total length) was measured 'over curves', he roughly compared to the Prague zoo tiger measured by V. Mazak. That tiger was 319 cm. 'between pegs' and 337 cm. 'over curves'. If Altai was measured in a straight line ('between pegs'), he's the longest I know of.

Based on the photographs I have, I'd say 'Altai' had a larger skull than 'Amur'.

Of course I know the measurement of skull length is at the incisors to the back of the skull. In the link you shared, it doesn't tell the difference between a skull that is measured on a flat surface and a skull that is not on a flat surface. But if we measured a skull on a table over a straight line, we will get a greater length measurement than when we measured a skull that is not placed on a table over a straight line. For example, a tiger skull on table or any flat surface that we measured over a straight line is 15.5 inches long but if we measured the skull that is not on a flat surface but instead like the picture below where its occipital bone doesn't touch any flat surface we will get a shorter length compared to the former.

   

So, Altai have a bigger head measurement compared to Amur? Then we can concluded Duisburg's Amur skull is only 420 mm despite its head is 50 cm? Reply