Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

[peter]

Amur tigers with exceptional skulls are uncommon, but by no means very rare. At least, not in captive animals. It seems to be a genetic treat. Both Heptner & Sludskij and V. Mazak wrote mature male Amur tigers have relatively large skulls, sometimes up to 20% of the head and body length.

Skulls of captive Indian tigers, however, seem to be more robust (relatively wider and heavier) than those of captive male Amur tigers. I don't know about wild Indian tigers, but nearly all photographs of Kazirangha male tigers point towards large and heavy skulls. In both sexes. This is a difference with Amur tigers. The longest female skull I know of was 329,00 mm. in greatest total length (wild Amur tigress), but the average is close to 300,00 mm.

Indian hunters and experienced forest officials agreed the relation between skull width and weight is stronger than skull length and (body) weight. Could be similar in Amur tigers. The widest skulls I know of all belong to wild male Indian tigers, but I never measured a skull of a wild male Amur tiger. The tigers above all seem to have exceptional wide and robust skulls.

Second place in the skull competition, in my opinion, would go to Sumatra. They show a lot of variation (males roughly range between 280,00-350,00 mm. in greatest total length), but the largest skulls no doubt are missing from museum collections. Males, at about 310,00-315,00 mm. in greatest total length have relatively large skulls compared to their weight (males average 115-120 kg.). Sumatrans seem to have proportionally larger skulls than large jaguars.

This skull of a well-known Sumatran man-eater has to be somewhere. I might try Bogor in the near future, but it could be he's in The Netherlands after all:

*This image is copyright of its original author

       

  
When you get to skulls, bones and computations regarding extinct big cats, it would not be superfluous to distinguish between species. Male lions, in my opinion, seem to have relatively longer skulls and relatively larger chests (averages) than tigers of similar size. Indian tigers would be the exception to the general rule. They are, however, not heavier. Large tiger subspecies (averages) seem to top the list.

Those who had experience with both wild Indian and wild Amur tigers agreed the old Amurs (a century ago) were both larger and heavier than all others. Today, Indian seem to top the list. The relation between skull and body size (as well as mass) could change over time, that it.

Here's three more:

1 - Large captive male lion (Argentina). Very tall and large skull, but not overly robust:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 


2 - Wild male Amur tiger (not weighed as far as I know):

*This image is copyright of its original author

3 - Wild male Amur tiger. Man-eater, they said, but the faces of the hunters point in another direction. Average-sized male in many respects, but the skull is larger than one would expect:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply