There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
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.
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.
The lion with 6.7cm canines is a captive one, and he weighs about 282kg.
BTW, the captive big cats usually have longer canines compared to their wild counterparts, since their canines are less used and worn down.
04-22-2014, 12:50 AM( This post was last modified: 04-22-2014, 01:02 AM by GuateGojira )
Thanks for the clarification, so the 6.7 cm canines are from a captive and then, we can compare it only with those of captive tigers.
In this case, no wild lion seems to have canines over 6 cm long, while tigers surpass the 7 cm, both of them measured to the gum line.
Interesting new fact that we most take in count.
(04-16-2014, 05:58 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I recently bought the book “Tiger: the ultimate guide” of Valmik Thapar (2004), and in an article “Filming Tigers” from Mike Birkhead, he states that the large male known as “Madla” that was estimated at 250 kg with a neck of 90 cm, had upper canines that were about 75 mm! (Page 213). This is a new record among Bengal tigers and taking in count that this was measured to the gum line, this means a length of no less than 80 mm in the dry skull, surpassing any wild Amur tiger canine recorded.
Watch Madla and his canines, the record ones in all the modern cats world!!!
*This image is copyright of its original author
This huge tiger (Madla) was a true giant, probably even larger than the record Nepale tiger Sauraha, as all his available measurements and even its picture shows a larger specimen. Probably, his estimated weight of 250 kg (he bottomed the scale of 550 lb used, but several experts calculated that he weighed that figure, trying to exclude the stomach content) was probably slightly low (Sauraha, been smaller, weighed 260 kg empty belly).
His head is so large that I estimate a skull length of c.39 cm and this is been conservative. [img]images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]
04-22-2014, 01:12 AM( This post was last modified: 04-22-2014, 01:32 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(04-22-2014, 12:50 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:
(04-22-2014, 12:20 AM)'GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, so the 6.7 cm canines are from a captive and then, we can compare it only with those of captive tigers.
In this case, no wild lion seems to have canines over 6 cm long, while tigers surpass the 7 cm, both of them measured to the gum line.
Interesting new fact that we most take in count.
(04-16-2014, 05:58 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I recently bought the book “Tiger: the ultimate guide” of Valmik Thapar (2004), and in an article “Filming Tigers” from Mike Birkhead, he states that the large male known as “Madla” that was estimated at 250 kg with a neck of 90 cm, had upper canines that were about 75 mm! (Page 213). This is a new record among Bengal tigers and taking in count that this was measured to the gum line, this means a length of no less than 80 mm in the dry skull, surpassing any wild Amur tiger canine recorded.
Watch Madla and his canines, the record ones in all the modern cats world!!!
*This image is copyright of its original author
This huge tiger (Madla) was a true giant, probably even larger than the record Nepale tiger Sauraha, as all his available measurements and even its picture shows a larger specimen. Probably, his estimated weight of 250 kg (he bottomed the scale of 550 lb used, but several experts calculated that he weighed that figure, trying to exclude the stomach content) was probably slightly low (Sauraha, been smaller, weighed 260 kg empty belly).
His head is so large that I estimate a skull length of c.39 cm and this is been conservative. [img]images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Yep, those giant specimens of Panthera spelaea/fossilis got the upper canines around 7.5cm from the skull (no less than 45cm), while Madla as a modern big cat got larger upper canines than those prehistoric big cats, then his skull has a good chance of being in the 40cm league.
There is a 6 inches sub-fossil upper canine of Amur tiger that i showed before, maybe the Amur tigers in the past did produce the specimens as impressive as Madla.
(04-22-2014, 01:12 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Yep, those giant specimens of Panthera spelaea/fossilis got the upper canines around 7.5cm from the skull (no less than 45cm), while Madla as a modern big cat got larger upper canines than those prehistoric big cats, then his skull has a good chance of being in the 40cm league.
Yes, I am sure that Madla had a large skull length, and taking in count that there are several male skulls of up to 400 cm, I think that Madla skull was no smaller that this figure.
I think that some modern wild Amur tigers do reach a similar sized canines just like that from Bengals. For example, the large Chanwangshai skull (16 in - 406 mm in GSL) had upper canines of 3 inches (7.6 cm), which means no less than 7 cm in the gum line. This is similar to the Madla male. I can guess that about 7 cm (to the gum line) is the normal maximum length for an upper canine in the Bengal and Amur tigers, over this figures, there will be exceptionally large specimens, at least in the wild.
Great stuff Guate. Very interesting picture of madlas teeth as well.
I watched Indian Jungles :the tiger, documentory last night. I forgot how much footage of old prime waghdoh they had, he is just a massive beast. There is a part in the documentory where he and a female are coming out of a lake and walking side by side, man waghdoh's head is just absolutely monstrous compared to hers. He also has more of a box shaped head to him, I wonder what a tiger like that would have in terms of skull weight, length and width, compared to the massive but longer skulls of the Kaziranga tigers.
04-22-2014, 02:14 AM( This post was last modified: 04-22-2014, 02:19 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(04-22-2014, 01:58 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:
(04-22-2014, 01:12 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Yep, those giant specimens of Panthera spelaea/fossilis got the upper canines around 7.5cm from the skull (no less than 45cm), while Madla as a modern big cat got larger upper canines than those prehistoric big cats, then his skull has a good chance of being in the 40cm league.
Yes, I am sure that Madla had a large skull length, and taking in count that there are several male skulls of up to 400 cm, I think that Madla skull was no smaller that this figure.
I think that some modern wild Amur tigers do reach a similar sized canines just like that from Bengals. For example, the large Chanwangshai skull (16 in - 406 mm in GSL) had upper canines of 3 inches (7.6 cm), which means no less than 7 cm in the gum line. This is similar to the Madla male. I can guess that about 7 cm (to the gum line) is the normal maximum length for an upper canine in the Bengal and Amur tigers, over this figures, there will be exceptionally large specimens, at least in the wild.
I think this sub-fossil upper canine is similar to that of Madla, it is 82-83mm from the skull and 155mm in the total length.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
(04-22-2014, 02:13 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Great stuff Guate. Very interesting picture of madlas teeth as well.
I watched Indian Jungles :the tiger, documentory last night. I forgot how much footage of old prime waghdoh they had, he is just a massive beast. There is a part in the documentory where he and a female are coming out of a lake and walking side by side, man waghdoh's head is just absolutely monstrous compared to hers. He also has more of a box shaped head to him, I wonder what a tiger like that would have in terms of skull weight, length and width, compared to the massive but longer skulls of the Kaziranga tigers.
Here is my own speculation.
Now it is quite safe to assume that Madla got 16 inches skull and 6 inches canines, and the Kaziranga monsters could have 17 inches skull and 7 inches canines assuming if they are another league above Madla.
Those huge canines that you show are from the famous Wanhsien tiger, I think, or are from subfossils?
Even then, this shows that tigers have prefered the long canines strategy and despite the fact that this diminish at some level the gap size, the large canines are the best tool to kill the wide-neck large herbivores. So, the gap is no problem after all.
About the Kaziranga tigers, it is posible that some skulls of up to 17 in (43 cm) could exist, but we need those bones in museums.
An interesting fact, I have read many documents and the longest wild lion skull acepted by scientists is not the 17 in skull from Rowland Ward but another South Africa specimen of 419 cm (16.5 in) hunted by Kirby in the late nineteen century. Even Helmut Hemmer, in his great monograph about the lion, state that this skull is the longest reliable recorded and not that of Rowland Wards. Interesting, don't you think?
(04-22-2014, 02:52 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Those huge canines that you show are from the famous Wanhsien tiger, I think, or are from subfossils?
Even then, this shows that tigers have prefered the long canines strategy and despite the fact that this diminish at some level the gap size, the large canines are the best tool to kill the wide-neck large herbivores. So, the gap is no problem after all.
About the Kaziranga tigers, it is posible that some skulls of up to 17 in (43 cm) could exist, but we need those bones in museums.
An interesting fact, I have read many documents and the longest wild lion skull acepted by scientists is not the 17 in skull from Rowland Ward but another South Africa specimen of 419 cm (16.5 in) hunted by Kirby in the late nineteen century. Even Helmut Hemmer, in his great monograph about the lion, state that this skull is the longest reliable recorded and not that of Rowland Wards. Interesting, don't you think?
Now it is hard to determine it is the fossil Wanhsien tiger or the sub-fossil Amur tiger. According to the analysis of peter, it is a 500 pounds adult male a little passed of its prime with good teeth condition.
Regardless of that, it does show that the modern tigers have the same canines as the Wanhsien tiger despite the change of the prey base.
BTW, the 17 inches skull can exist among the captive tigers, wonder if the wild tigers can produce the skull as large as those from the captivity.
04-22-2014, 03:27 AM( This post was last modified: 04-22-2014, 03:28 AM by GuateGojira )
Oh yes, some captive tigers do have 17 inches skulls, however most of the owners most destroy all bones by law, in order to show that they don't support the illegal trade or just because they don't have space to keep them.
The prey base of the Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) was most likely that of the modern Bengal tigers, with a large cervid population, wild boar and great bovines like several subspecies of wild buffaloes and gaurs. This prey base was the key for the success of this large tiger that dominated trough several thousands of years and even give origin to modern tigers. Sadly, the Sunda shelf that also supported a great prey base and large tigers, disappeared and the remained islands were too small that the prey base and the tiger size itself diminish.
Peter, I will like to know, based in your experience, if the canines of the Island tigers are longer than that of Mainland, in relation to its overall size. From advance, thanks.
04-22-2014, 03:37 AM( This post was last modified: 04-22-2014, 04:30 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(04-22-2014, 03:27 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Oh yes, some captive tigers do have 17 inches skulls, however most of the owners most destroy all bones by law, in order to show that they don't support the illegal trade or just because they don't have space to keep them.
The prey base of the Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) was most likely that of the modern Bengal tigers, with a large cervid population, wild boar and great bovines like several subspecies of wild buffaloes and gaurs. This prey base was the key for the success of this large tiger that dominated trough several thousands of years and even give origin to modern tigers. Sadly, the Sunda shelf that also supported a great prey base and large tigers, disappeared and the remained islands were too small that the prey base and the tiger size itself diminish.
Peter, I will like to know, based in your experience, if the canines of the Island tigers are longer than that of Mainland, in relation to its overall size. From advance, thanks.
Some Sumatran tigers can also have massive canines, this one from the private collection is 13cm in the total length.
(04-22-2014, 03:27 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Oh yes, some captive tigers do have 17 inches skulls, however most of the owners most destroy all bones by law, in order to show that they don't support the illegal trade or just because they don't have space to keep them.
The prey base of the Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) was most likely that of the modern Bengal tigers, with a large cervid population, wild boar and great bovines like several subspecies of wild buffaloes and gaurs. This prey base was the key for the success of this large tiger that dominated trough several thousands of years and even give origin to modern tigers. Sadly, the Sunda shelf that also supported a great prey base and large tigers, disappeared and the remained islands were too small that the prey base and the tiger size itself diminish.
Peter, I will like to know, based in your experience, if the canines of the Island tigers are longer than that of Mainland, in relation to its overall size. From advance, thanks.
WHICH CAT HAS THE LONGEST UPPER CANINES?
The best way to get to a conclusion is to compare upper canine length (measured from the gum to the tip in a straight line) to condylobasal length (1) in Amur and island tigers and to compare wild Amurs with wild island tigers (2). This is a problem, because I never saw a wild Amur skull.
However. I saw many captive and wild skulls of island tigers and also measured quite many skulls of mainland tigers. Here's a few conclusions:
1 - There's no question that canines in wild skulls are longer and stronger (thicker at the base) than canines in captive skulls.
2 - Wild Bali tigers have shorter canines than both Java and Sumatra tigers.
3 - Canines in wild Bali tigers almost compare to canines in large jaguar skulls for length, but Bali tigers have a wider rostrum and thicker canines.
4 - Java tigers have slightly longer skulls than Sumatra tigers (in males in particular), but Sumatra tigers have slightly longer canines.
5 - The longest uper canines I saw in a wild male Sumatra tiger were just over 70,00 mm. in a straight line.
6 - Captive Amur skulls have the longest and heaviest upper canines of all big cats.
7 - In relatives (upper canine length to condylobasal length), wild Sumatra tigers could have the longest upper canines.
SOME PHOTOGRAPHS
Don't use the measurements to jump to conclusions, as there is a lot of variation (also within subspecies). Sorry about the differences in range, but every photographer I asked had slightly different ideas. After every weight, I added 'uncleaned' (not defatted) or 'cleaned' (defatted). Makes a difference.
A - WILD MALE LION (greatest total length 384,55 mm. - weight 1,840 kg. uncleaned - upper canines 63,30 and 62,60 mm.)
*This image is copyright of its original author
B - WILD MALE SUMATRAN TIGER (greatest total length 321,72 mm. - weight 1,500 kg. uncleaned - upper canines 65,30 and 65,70 mm.)
*This image is copyright of its original author
C - WILD MALE JAVA TIGER (greatest total length 325,82 mm. - weight 1,602 kg. cleaned - upper canines 62,60 and 62,10 mm.)
*This image is copyright of its original author
D - CAPTIVE MALE AMUR TIGER (greatest total length 368,60 mm. - weight 2,120 kg. uncleaned - upper canines 71,90 - 70,80 m.)
Thank you very much for the data peter. So it seems that the Sumatran tigers have longer canines, in relation with the skull length. I infer then that all Island tigers have relative longer canines than Mainland tigers, except for the Bali tiger.
Sadly, the sample of Bali is two small and those are the only specimens available, ever. So, all our conclutions most be infer from them, but they will be allways very partial.
Again, thanks for the data and the pictures with measurements. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur
