Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws

[GrizzlyClaws]

@peter

I do remember a Wildfact poster in year ago had posted his own private collection of an old wild male Bengal skull.

The skull weighed about 1828 g (= 4.03005 pounds), and a single upper canine from the skull weighed 62 g. And this type of specimen was similar to the one that the scientists used to study on the big cat's canine bending strength.

So it has to do with the proportion of the canine teeth on the skull, it is quite likely that the Amur tiger skull has significant proportion of the canine weight on its skull than other tiger subspecies. Some Amur canines weigh over 250 g, but it doesn't mean its skull is over 4 times heavier than a 4 pounds Bengal skull just because its canine teeth are more than 4 times heavier. Like you said, the Amur tiger skull is proportionally lighter skull because it has invested more proportion on its canine teeth. Let's if an Amur skull and a Bengal skull of similar weight, the Amur skull could likely have much heavier canines, but if we deduct the canines, then the rest would be lighter than that of the Bengal skull.



Here is a lion skull and a tiger skull of similar length. However, tiger's canine alveoli is much larger than that of the lion, so the weight of the canine is also likely more than twice heavier. The interspecific comparison is even harder to determine the size, since the two species might have different proportion of the skull and canines.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply