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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 2 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Biggest Kaziranga tiger?

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#91
( This post was last modified: 12-06-2014, 11:51 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

(12-06-2014, 10:37 AM)'johnny rex' Wrote:
(12-06-2014, 10:29 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: All we have focused so far was mainly about the GSL, not much about the width.

The largest Panthera atrox skull on the record is 467.5mm and 304.5mm.

The largest Cromerian lion skull is 484.7mm and the width is unknown, but their skull is proportionally narrower compared to other big cats.

So we can assume that the largest skull of the prehistoric lions or lion-like cats should be around 12 inches.

 


Okay we assumed that the prehistoric lions or lion-like cats largest skull width is around 12 inches, so considering the fact that tigers have much wider skull than lions, then should we assume prehistoric tigers or tiger-like cats have much wider skull than prehistoric lions/lion-like cats?

 

The prehistoric tiger skulls seem to be more robust built than their modern counterparts, but the only problem is that the exact measurements are still not available.

If you ask me that could the prehistoric tiger skull exceed 12 inches in width? It is definitely possible, at least theoritically plausible.
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#92
( This post was last modified: 12-06-2014, 11:54 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

With today's ecosystem, i doubt a big cat with the size of Baikal could survive in the wild.

Let's assume if he did live back in the Pleistocene era, he should have only few Cromerian lions/Smilodon populator/Ngandong tigers as the rivals. He should also have more muscle mass as the wild tigers always need to pack with more muscle for the hunting and struggling with the big preys.

In the early of this year, we actually managed to perceive that Baikal was in fact an almost exact doppelganger of the Ngandong tiger specimen with the 480mm femur.

I can say the Amur tiger still carries some recessive genes of the giant tiger, and in the captivity without facing the pressure as they did in the wild, they could manage to unleash more potential to produce more freak specimens.

There is chance that Baikal's offsprings might switch back to the normal sized captive Amurs, but still they have the chance or potential to produce something big.

BTW, Baikal's daughter is also huge, she weighs about 500 pounds.
3 users Like GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#93

(12-06-2014, 10:27 AM)'johnny rex' Wrote:
(12-06-2014, 12:22 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(12-04-2014, 09:37 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(12-01-2014, 11:46 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: 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?







 

Some captive Amur tigers have been known to have their head measurement up to 20 inches, so their skulls are probably up to 17 inches as well.

BTW, the monstrous specimen like Baikal probably got a skull between 17 to 18 inches.






 

Its to hard to know what actually skull measurements would be off of head size.
Muscle mass, fur densisty, etc will play a huge role.
From the sizes of skulls confirmed of captive Siberians that I have seen. They don't seem any larger than wild. 280kg specimens with 14.24'' skulls, seems to fit nicely. Also, skull size is not direct relation to tiger size, body length is usually a better indicator to tiger weight.

 





 


So, @Pckts you believe Baikal actually have a rather small skull measuring only at 14-15 inches at that size? In most videos that I had watched that showing Amur tigers and lions together, it is always the Amur tigers that have the larger head size when compared to lions. For example, those videos show a comparison between a male lion and an Amur tiger.




 




 

 

 

 


No johnny, I believe that there is no way to tell what his skull size would be.
Its very possible that he doesn't have the largest skull ever, since many large siberians don't have extremely large skulls. Its also very possible that he does. But until its measured, I will not jump to conclusions. 

I wonder if extreme canine size comes with the fact that they don't wear their canines down the way the do in the wild. The longest wild canine belongs to a Bengal, not siberian. When cats eat dead prey, they crush bone and cartilage. They tackle struggling prey etc.
Thats why a captive giant amur probably has the longest canines, but there are very few captive pure Bengals, and even less actual measurements of them. So that to, is to hard to say in my book. 
 
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#94
( This post was last modified: 12-07-2014, 05:16 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

The captive Amur with the 9cm canines has definitely a big skull, and his head is huge, and he is not fat at all.

Some tigers got a fat/meaty head, that's why its actual skull measurement is rather small, but some non-obese tigers with a large head will have a large skull as well.


*This image is copyright of its original author
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#95

(12-07-2014, 05:13 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: The captive Amur with the 9cm canines has definitely a big skull, and his head is huge, and he is not fat at all.

Some tigers got a fat/meaty head, that's why its actual skull measurement is rather small, but some non-obese tigers with a large head will have a large skull as well.


*This image is copyright of its original author


 



The only argument I have to this is the fact that the siberians of 270kg or 280kg or smaller surely aren't Obese yet their skulls are still generally normal sized. So the argument of fat increasing skull head size while having a smaller skull may not be true.
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#96

You both are right essentially due to the correlation of skull size and body size/mass being there, correlated to about r^2=0.7 I've found within species, which is a correlation, but a correlation which leaves a hefty amount of room for deviation, and often times the individual deviations themselves being very different. 
3 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#97

The 600 pounds tigers are large nomal-sized tiger, but definitely not in the textbook of the freak tigers.

I say the deviation number of the skull for the 600 pounds is between 14 to 16 inches. Some 600 pounds tigers can have smaller skull of 14 inches, while some have larger skull up to 16 inches.

As for the freak tigers like Baikal are between 16 to 18 inches. Even his skull is proportionally smaller, it would still be larger than your normal tigers.

The skull and weight do not correlate is true when everything stays in the deviation range, but not true when a 900 pounds tiger can have a tiny skull of a tigress.
2 users Like GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#98

(12-09-2014, 12:47 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: You both are right essentially due to the correlation of skull size and body size/mass being there, correlated to about r^2=0.7 I've found within species, which is a correlation, but a correlation which leaves a hefty amount of room for deviation, and often times the individual deviations themselves being very different. 

 


Exactly, for a 600 pounds tiger, the smallest skull he can get is about 14 inches, and the largest skull he can get is about 16 inches.

Since today's tigers aren't capable to reach their prehistoric size, that's why we won't see any wild skull beyond 16 inches anymore.
 
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#99
( This post was last modified: 12-09-2014, 02:15 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

Both 600 pounds tiger and 900 pounds tiger can have proportionally larger or smaller skull, but they still have the different deviation number for sure.

For example, let's assume that the deviation number for the skull of the 900 pounds tiger is between 16 to 18 inches.

I say that most 900 pounds tigers will get a 17 inches skull, only the minorities from both extreme side will get a skull of either 16 inches or 18 inches.

The 650 pounds specimen from Duisburg Zoo probably got a 17 inches, so he must be leaning towards the largest extreme of the deviation number for his league. Most tigers with similar size will definitely get a smaller skull in general.
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

I agree that the larger the cat the larger the skull, even if the skull is relatively "small" for its size, its still going to be large. But I think 2'' deviation between skulls of two similiarly sized cats is quite a gap. Its more than 10% difference in skull size so it kind of shows that Skull size is not the best correalation to tiger size.
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 12-09-2014, 02:23 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

(12-09-2014, 02:04 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: I agree that the larger the cat the larger the skull, even if the skull is relatively "small" for its size, its still going to be large. But I think 2'' deviation between skulls of two similiarly sized cats is quite a gap. Its more than 10% difference in skull size so it kind of shows that Skull size is not the best correalation to tiger size.

 


I think tigerluver will be the most suitable poster to find out the deviation numbers of the cat skull.

As for those Kaziranga tigers, if they are truly exceptional, then there will be no doubt that they can produce the largest cat skull in the wild.

They should have larger skull than the largest lion skull as well.
2 users Like GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

We know the Assam Tigers measured have the largest Skulls on average. But Tigerluver is definitely the most knowledgable in this area.
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators

(12-09-2014, 04:35 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: We know the Assam Tigers measured have the largest Skulls on average. But Tigerluver is definitely the most knowledgable in this area.

 

That's why i never doubt the potential 17 inches skull from the Assam tigers.

Maybe those large specimens could weigh more than 700 pounds?
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

(12-09-2014, 04:55 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(12-09-2014, 04:35 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: We know the Assam Tigers measured have the largest Skulls on average. But Tigerluver is definitely the most knowledgable in this area.


 

That's why i never doubt the potential 17 inches skull from the Assam tigers.

Maybe those large specimens could weigh more than 700 pounds?

 

I see know reason why they couldn't reach those sizes.
They hunt the largest prey, live in the most rich conditions, highest competition, why couldn't they reach the largest size?
Makes total sense to me

 
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

Typical Tigress Tank from Kaziranga,
They just have such densisty to their bodies.Sai Adikarla Photography December 3 ·    
My Own.. Tigress

She was hiding.. watching... and finally shown up after 3 hours of waiting!! It happened when everybody else in the safari waiting at the opposite end, she walked slowly towards my vehicle, growled and disappeared in to the bushes.

Later she gave me one more photo opportunity while appearing far away and being welcomed by remaining big four of Kaziranga. Same photo published in Sanctuary Asia magazine. Yes, she is My Own.. Tigress. — at Kaziranga National Park
*This image is copyright of its original author
3 users Like Pckts's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB