WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Tiger
Biggest Kaziranga tiger?
Biggest Kaziranga tiger?
|
Biggest Kaziranga tiger?
|
As far I know, there are no skull measurements directly from Kaziranga. However, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar measured two skulls from the Assam region and both of them measured 15 1/2 inches (394 mm) in greatest length. The largest skull recorded from Cooch Behar was of 15 3/4 inches (400 mm) in greatest length (Cooch Behar, 1908). Sadly, the Maharaja only measured 8 skulls, but there are other reports of longer skulls, although always in the Terai region. Hawkins (1954) reported a huge skull of 16 inches (406 mm) in greatest length, wich represent about the maximum recorded in India and Russia. This suggest that in fact, the tigers from the entire Terai area reach the largest body measurements (using skulls as surrogates).
Those Terai Tigers that @Roflcopters posted are unreal. Look every bit as large as most of the Kaziranga tigers as well.
@johnny rex No tiger or lion skull will be as large as a liger skull, but it doesn't matter. There is no such thing as a liger in the wild and it cannot survive there. No point in comparing either cat to it.  (12-01-2014, 07:52 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: As far I know, there are no skull measurements directly from Kaziranga. However, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar measured two skulls from the Assam region and both of them measured 15 1/2 inches (394 mm) in greatest length. The largest skull recorded from Cooch Behar was of 15 3/4 inches (400 mm) in greatest length (Cooch Behar, 1908). Sadly, the Maharaja only measured 8 skulls, but there are other reports of longer skulls, although always in the Terai region. Hawkins (1954) reported a huge skull of 16 inches (406 mm) in greatest length, wich represent about the maximum recorded in India and Russia. This suggest that in fact, the tigers from the entire Terai area reach the largest body measurements (using skulls as surrogates). I think it is more appropriate to compare the liger skull with the captive tiger skull. The captive tiger skull is known to be growing larger than their wild counterpart.
If you watch the Super Cat doc they have a lion, Tiger and Liger skull all side by side
The liger skull is massive, obviously we don't know if the Tiger and lion skull are male or female but they don't come close to the liger skull size. Hey Grizz, how do you know captive tiger skulls are larger than wild ones, out of curiousty? 
@Pckts actually the max size of male liger skulls are about the same as male tiger/lion skulls, measuring about 16 inches or a lil bit more. About the liger and various big cat skulls you had watched on the Super Cat doc, we know that the skulls belong to other animals other than the liger are female specimens because the skulls look gracile and much less robust, not to mention much smaller. Guate posted several pics of liger skulls in a thread somewhere in the forum and it is not quite impressive. If you remember the Bengal tiger that was compared to Sinbad, the male liger, I think it is just a normal sized male Bengal tiger despite weighing at 500 lbs.
 *This image is copyright of its original author A comparison between Hercules the liger, a male tiger and a male lion. I think those tiger and lion specimens are just average sized animals. *This image is copyright of its original author This is what we'll see if we compare a good size lion to a good size liger. If we compare the Kaziranga or exceptional Amur tiger (i.e Baikal) to male ligers, we'll even see much more amazing differences.
Thats a female tiger from the Super cat doc actually @johnny rex.
Max lion and tiger skulls is usually 16" or so, and that is maximum. Many more or smaller than that, out of 3 or so Liger skulls, all are over 16'' and even 17'' and width is'nt even included which all look to be much wider as well. The max size would only increase if we a had a larger # to work off of.
@Pckts Male tiger (Bengal and Siberian tigers) and lion (Kruger lions) skulls both average 15-16. Some specimen even go to 17 inches. Just like most of the male ligers. Skull width tend to be the same for those three animals except tigers or maybe some ligers tend to have much wider skull. If I am not mistaken I saw a picture showed two circus lions and a liger, and there were no differences between the sizes of their heads eventhough the lion head looked a little bit longer. I will try to find the photo and then I will post it later.
Just a suggestion to both of you, why you don't use centimeters or millimeters, instead of inches? Inches are a raw and unpractical type of measurement, millimeters are more exact, especially in the case of skulls.
Just to help in the debate, here are the record skulls with that of the liger skull that I post (greatest length x zygomatic wide): * Liger skull: 432 mm x 279 mm (http://schreckensart.homestead.com/skullscats.html) * African lion: 432 mm x 281 mm (Ward, 1914). * Bengal tiger: 413 mm x 251 mm (Hewett, 1938). * Amur tiger: 406 mm x 286 mm (Mazák, 1983). Please check that all the skulls from the wild are "Record" specimens (which means that they are not the norm), while that of the liger, we simply don't know if it came from a large or a small specimen, or even its sex. Hope this helps. (12-04-2014, 10:39 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Just a suggestion to both of you, why you don't use centimeters or millimeters, instead of inches? Inches are a raw and unpractical type of measurement, millimeters are more exact, especially in the case of skulls. @GuateGojira Actually if you see a female tiger and a female liger together in a circus or a zoo, there is only a lil bit size difference. This is a good size comparison between a tigress with a ligress at McCarthy Wildlife Sanctuary.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author So we can assume the liger skull is belong to a male liger. I think I want to see size comparisons between Baikal, "Amur" and Kaziranga male tigers and various male ligers. Oh, skull size comparisons between those tigers and various male ligers would be nice too. [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img] 
Following the Johnny rex, Link, I landed to very interesting page. Which is full of information of Hybrid cats, Like Liger, Tigon, etc I am sure many of you will find it interesting and can use the information from there. TFS Johnny, Link -
http://messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-cats.htm  (12-04-2014, 10:39 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Just a suggestion to both of you, why you don't use centimeters or millimeters, instead of inches? Inches are a raw and unpractical type of measurement, millimeters are more exact, especially in the case of skulls.The 406mm Amur skull has width 3mm larger than the record Bengal skull, this is the widest tiger skull on record.  (12-04-2014, 10:27 AM)'johnny rex' Wrote: @Pckts Male tiger (Bengal and Siberian tigers) and lion (Kruger lions) skulls both average 15-16. Some specimen even go to 17 inches. Just like most of the male ligers. Skull width tend to be the same for those three animals except tigers or maybe some ligers tend to have much wider skull. If I am not mistaken I saw a picture showed two circus lions and a liger, and there were no differences between the sizes of their heads eventhough the lion head looked a little bit longer. I will try to find the photo and then I will post it later. Hi Johnny, Hope you like it here. 1 - Greatest skull length of Indian tigers, Amurs and lions I have well over hundred reliable measurements of skulls of wild male Indian tigers. Although they average well over 14 inches in greatest total length, the average for all, as Pocock (1929) suggested, could be just about 14 inches. The average of skulls of captive male Indian tigers is a bit below 14 inches. Wild skulls are larger (and much heavier), that is. In Amur tigers, it's the other way round. Skulls of captive adult males are about 14,5 inches in greatest total length, whereas skulls of wild males seem (I never measured skulls of wild Amur tigers, meaning I'm not sure about this statement) to be a bit shorter. Although they are longer than most male skulls of captive Indian tigers, they are not as robust. In upper and lower canine length, however, Amur tiger skulls are unsurpassed. Over the years, I measured many big cat skulls in museums and private collections. The largest skulls (wild or captive) are always lion skulls. There's no question lions, at the level of species, have longer skulls than tigers. This is in absolutes. Same for relatives, because lions usually are a bit shorter in head and body length. Skulls of wild male lions in south-east Africa quite often get to 14,75 inches. The longest I measured, however, was from Ethiopia. This skull was just over 16 inches. Skulls of captive animals seem to be longer than wild skulls. The reason is lions, in contrast to tigers (with the exception of Amur tigers), often do well in captivity. Same for skulls. In beauty and density (weight), however, captive skulls do not compare to wild skulls. In absolutes, the difference in greatest total length between most skulls of wild male lions and most skulls of wild male tigers (of large subspecies) is limited. Could be just about 1 cm., I think. The longest Indian tiger skull (Hewett, 1938) was 16,25 inches. I never saw one, but expect wild Amur tigers could be similar or a trifle longer, because Amur tigers usually are a bit longer. The longest skulls of wild lions are a trifle longer (up to 16,5 inches or a bit over, with one, though unconfirmed, at 17 inches). 2 - SKULL STRUCTURE Lion skulls are longer, because they have longer snouts (extended maxillary bone). Tiger snouts usually are a bit wider just in front of the canines. The reason is they have larger canines. Large canines need a larger platform and a bit of reinforcement. In zygomatic width, there's little to choose between the two. Relatively speaking, one could say tiger skulls are a bit wider and be right. The reason is they are usually a bit shorter. Lions, so it seems, use their skull in a slightly different way. Tigers are one-time biters who usually kill with the initial bite, whereas lions operate in the bite and jerk division. Tigers, for this reason, need large canines, a platform for the canines (a wide and reinforced rostrum) and a clear vault (in order to penetrate with maximum force), whereas lions need some kind of reinforment in order to withstand the pressure exercised in long struggles. For this reason, the central part of the skull (the os frontalis), usually is a bit wider and stronger in lion skulls. Both big cats have large and strong crests, but in lions the sagittal crest usually is high and straight, whereas it is a bit lower, but slightly thicker in tigers. The crest usually is vaulted as well, but that could be a result of the shape of the skull (tigers have more vaulted skulls dominated by vertical lines, whereas lion skulls are dominated by horizontal lines). Bears, not accomplished predators, differ from both big cats in that the posterior (back) part of the skull usually is enforced. They have the largest and heaviest skulls. So what we see is rounded, vaulted and shortened faces with big canines in true cats (solitary hunters), a reinforced central part in social cats (group hunters) and a reinforced posterior part in omnivores (opportunistic hunters). True hunters can't use superfluous weight, meaning the skull is very functional and not reinforced all over. This will usually result in less weight. The less specialized the hunter, the longer and stronger the skull. The long muzzle in lions could be a result of display (a large face always helps), whereas it probably is a result of a great nose in bears (if your hunting is below par but you need meat to maintain your size, you could always go for a great nose and follow it). In conflicts, of course, a long nose is not what you would have selected, especially when your opponent has large canines and no bones for noses. 3 - LIGERS AND TIGONS I saw a few skulls of ligers and tigons. All were shorter than an average lion or tiger skull. The exceptional animals who feature in many debates about freaks (referring to ligers, tigons and all the rest of it) are few and far between. But when they are large, they are larger than the largest lion or tiger. I saw many and felt pity for them. The reason is they belong nowhere. And they know. The photograph of the tigon was first posted by me on AVA some years ago. It was a very large male, but he was the exception to the rule. Ligers usually are larger. When you debate freaks, remember they, apart from one (a mix between a wild Indian tiger and a wild Indian leopard seen by Hicks more than a century ago), are never seen in the wild. Mixes are a result of captivity and humans. For every giant you see, there are many disabled and blind animals. Here's the story about the mix Hicks saw in India:  *This image is copyright of its original author |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |