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

[GuateGojira]

(04-21-2014, 10:50 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:

Quote:Yes, Madla have the longest canines from any wild tiger recorded in litterature. We sould put an image of Madla canines in order to see those formidable weaponds. Although the Amur tiger know as "Amur", reported by Dr Gewalt was canines up to 90 mm and these are the longest canines in record, this came from a captive specimen, while that of Madla is from a wild one. It is interesting that Mazák (1983) stated that while the upper canines from "Amur" measured 90 mm, the lower canines measured "only" 60 mm. In Bengal tigers, it seems that the diference is no more than 1 cm.

The lower canines don't have as much of room to grow compare to the upper canines.

Nevertheless, the 60mm lower canines are already close to record of the largest uppper canines for lion.

 

That is true, but my point was that there it seems that upper canines in Amur tigers are sligtly longer than those of Bengal, in relation with the lower canines. However, this is just one animal and I don't have more data to make comparisons.

From 55 male South Africa lions, the longest unbroken canine recorded by Smuts was of 5.6 cm (measured to the gum line). The longest canine measured from lions in Amboseli was of 5.8 cm (Jirmo et al., 2010). From 14 adult male lions measured by peter, the longest canines were of 6.7 cm, but I dont know if this was from a wild or a captive specimen (I bet for the second case). Finally, the longest canines recorded by Dr Christiansen were of 6.1 cm (specimen BM45.168), but this was a captive specimen. It seems that about 6 cm is the longest wild canine, so the lower canines of the tiger "Amur" were as long as the longest report for lions in the wild.
  Reply