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.
04-29-2018, 10:05 AM( This post was last modified: 04-29-2018, 10:16 AM by Betty )
(04-29-2018, 02:06 AM)peter Wrote: BETTY
Thanks again. Assuming that the translation is correct, the condylobasal length of the Hamamatsu zoo skull is 380 mm. As the difference between the condylobasal length and the greatest total length in skulls of adult male tigers of large subspecies ranges between 40-55 mm., the greatest total length of the Hamamatsu zoo skull has to be at least 420 mm. This means that the skull compares to the Koln zoo tiger for length.
The question is if this conclusion is correct. The photographs say no.
Assuming that the zygomatic width of the Koln zoo tiger really is about 284 mm., the greatest total length has to be close to 430 mm., if not more. The reason is that the relation between greatest length and width is 1,52.
In the Hamamatsu zoo tiger skull, assumptions are not needed. The reason is we know that the zygomatic width of the skull is 284 mm. The relation between greatest total length and greatest width, however, isn't 1,52 (as in the Koln zoo tiger), but 1,34-1,35. This means that the greatest total length has to be 380-383 mm.
Agreed?
I could have missed a few things. In order to find out if I did, you have to print both photographs. Measure the width and the greatest length of both skulls and tell me what I missed.
Here's the photograph of the Koln zoo tiger:
*This image is copyright of its original author
And here's the photograph of the Hamamatsu zoo tiger:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It will take a bit of time, but the outcome is of interest. Thanks in advance.
In fact, I previously measured the skull and concluded that the skull is 380mm long and 284mm wide. I confirm that there is no problem with my translation. I think it was the author who made a mistake in the use of the term.
According to the measurement of the lower jaw (240mm), the skull length is 380mm, for the calculation of the upper canine teeth, the length is 9.4 cm.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Interestingly, according to the calculation of the Scale ruler, the skull is 394mm long and 292mm wide.