Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[peter]

(09-19-2017, 05:34 AM)Michael Wrote: Is there any size difference in canines between lions and tigers ? 
From what I've seen there isn't any at least in male specimens

In general, lions have longer skulls (greatest total length) than tigers, whereas tigers have larger canines. This conclusion was confirmed in every article I read. Confirmed at the level of averages, I mean.

Tigers of large subspecies have absolutely longer and more robust upper canines than lions. I absolutes, male Amur tigers top the list. In relatives (upper canine length divided by condylobasal skull length), male Sumatran tigers do.

As to 'relative'. Adult wild male lions of large subspecies (referring to lions living in central, southern and southwestern parts Africa) range between 165-210 kg. (365-464 lbs.), whereas adult wild male Sumatran tigers range between 80-140 kg. (178-310 lbs.). The heaviest wild male Sumatran tiger was just over 148 kg. (331 lbs.). Skulls of wild male lions range between 340-400 mm. (greatest total length in a straight line), whereas skulls of wild male Sumatran tigers range between 285-335 mm. In spite of the striking difference in size, the upper canines are about similar in length.

Why is it that lions have shorter canines? 

Bones are related to function. If a cat smaller than a lion has upper canines of similar size, they are relatively more important. Lions, although able to hunt large animals on their own, usually hunt in small groups. This means that large canines in order to kill as fast as possible are not needed. What is needed, is a skeleton and a skull able to withstand stress for a prolonged period of time. In many lion skulls, the upper canines are projected forward to a degree. This allows them to pin their victim. Adult tigers hunt on their own. As they can't afford serious injuries, large canines are useful in that they get the job done in very little time. As the canines are used as daggers, they often are projected downward. The acute angle is a result of the need to kill as fast as possible.

As lions and tigers use their canines in a different way, their skull adapted. Lion skulls are relatively flat and built to withstand stress. The tip of the mandibula usually is pointed upward. This, in combination with the upper jaw, results in a lock. Lions skulls are dominated by horizontal lines and flattish curves.

Tiger skulls developed to generate maximum force at the tip of the canines. This is why tiger canines are longer and generally more robust than lions canines and this is why tiger skulls, at least in the facial part, are more vaulted. In order to prevent fractures when applying maximum pressure, the rostrum was strengthened. This is why lion 'snouts' are more or less straight and why tiger 'snouts' often widen towards the canines. In general, tiger skulls serve as anchors for large canines. As the pressure is projected downward, vertical lines and acute angles dominate. Tiger mandibulas are nearly always shorter than lion mandibulas and either straight or concave.

At a glance.

a - Wild male lion (Kalahari) top and captive Amur tiger bottom. Both adult males. Amur tiger skull a bit longer.

Mandibula: tiger straight and lion convex. Face: lion longer and flatter. Angles: more acute in the tiger. Upper canines: longer and heavier in the tiger. Pressure lines: more vertical in the tiger skull. Robustness: about similar. Function: one is a powerful locker (lion) and the other a powerful biter (tiger):  

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply