Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws

[peter]

(07-30-2015, 11:45 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: It is quite odd that the Amur tiger got the heaviest canine teeth, but the skull is overall lightly built.

Maybe it has put more weight on its muzzle part?
 

Skulls of captive male Indian tigers, although shorter than those of captive male Amur tigers, often are heavier. If not, they are heavier for their size. Sample size no doubt had an effect, but I thought I saw a pattern. I don't know if captive Amurs have heavier canines. They are generally not as curved, longer and thicker at the insertion. Compared to the size of the total skull, they often seem (and are) very large. Skulls of Indian tigers are more robust, especially in the central area. The only explanation I have is density. A bit odd, as captive Amur tigers, and males in particular, are larger, taller and heavier than all other captive big cats (averages).

Amur tiger skulls, more than those of all other big cats, are about the canines. They often appear to be big gun platforms, just like in the old battle cruisers (not the heavier battle ships). They remind me of the 'Hood'. The reason could be no heavy prey animals and long struggles. Density most probably is related to prolonged struggles with powerful animals. I know Amur tigers engage wild boars and bears of similar weight, but these fights seem to be about agility, movement and the ability to deliver a lethal strike or bite. Compare this to male tiger 'Raja', who restrained and throttled a gaur on his own. It took him a few minutes only, but the force he had to overcome had to be immense.

I repeat I didn't see skulls of wild Amur tigers. They could be different. The ones I saw from a distance, however, didn't seem very different from the skulls of the captive Amur tigers I measured: long, not too wide and very long upper canines. They do seem to differ from Indian tiger skulls in that the maxillary bone, like in many lions, is a bit longer, more elevated and straighter. It seems to be strenghtened, but the extra strength, in my opinion, is a result of the extra long upper canines foremost. 

Wild Amur tigers seem to be a bit longer and taller than wild Indian tigers, but most are not as heavy. The extra length could be an adaption to the local conditions (deep snow, hills and long walks), but they seem more athletic than Indian tigers. In a fight with a dangerous opponent of similar weight, like a wild boar or a bear, both very compact and robust, this could be an advantage. Amur tigers, as far as I know, seldom succumb in a fight. There are, on the other hand, plenty of stories about Indian tigers struggling with large wild boars.

Nepal and Terai tigers seem to compare to Amur tigers in that they are long, but they seem less compact than many tigers in central India. Even if they are heavier in absolutes, they seem to carry relatively less weight. The weight is concentrated in the parts that matter, whereas central Indian tigers often seem to be more massive overall. This was what the old hunters also stated: longer and larger in Bengal, but not as robust as those in central and south India. They could have been right.  

Captive Amurs, in contrast to captive Indian tigers, often are heavier than their wild relatives. We think captive Amurs get to their potential, but one could also say they are not as fit and combattive as their wild counterparts. Remember a heavy tiger will tire quickly in deep snow or hills and my guess is extra weight wouldn't help you in a fight with a wild boar or bear. When the opponent is strong, compact and robust, it is about something else. You need speed, athletic ability and strong fore-arms to position your opponent where you want him and you need to be able to administer severe damage fast. And that's what we see in wild Amur tigers. Fitness and the ability to move quickly are important when you are vulnarable. One trush is enough for a wild boar and bears also are able to eliminate a tiger quickly. Maybe a fight is a contest in strength, but my guess is it isn't. For robustness and the ability to take damage, a cat will never compare to a bear or boar, even if both are similar in weight. His best chance is in the ability to outmanouver his opponent and connect first. At his conditions. If he's able to do that, chances are he will be able to use his advantage, his teeth, first. And in the correct way. 

I saw fights between captive tigers more than once. Sumatrans are lightning fast, avoid strength contests and strike. Ten strikes is out. The fights are way more serious than in other subspecies or lions, because they do less damage when they strike. Amur tigers seldom fight. When they do, they rely on their size and power. When there is a fight, however, they are way more athletic than you expect. Amur tigers are masters in moving. In the fights I saw, they reminded me of very able boxers. They're heavyweights able to knock their opponent out. One blow or one bite will do it and they know. Indian tigers, as we saw in South Africa and India, don't do athletics and tactics. When they fight, they quickly connect, fasten their teeth and hold on. When lucky, they crush the windpipe or skull of their opponent. When not, they try again. Until one has had enough. In order to fight in that way, you need very strong neck muscles. And a very strong skull. Reply