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.
(06-01-2014, 09:20 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Here is Guate's work, just scale the 38.3cm wild Amur skull up to 43cm, then you can see that the canine size also matches with the Duisburg Zoo specimen.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Yes as you said there is a symmetry in the tiger skull measurements.
But is it applicable for smaller subspecies of tigers too ? Wont they have slightly longer canines for the skull size ?
Do you have any measurements for Baikal ?
The 40cm skull measurement for Madla, is it taken when he was live or dead ?
The island tigers shouldn't take into account since their conspecification with the mainland tigers is still debatable. Amur and Bengal can be compared to each other as they both belong to the mainland tiger clade.
Baikal stands at 4 feet tall and being 8 feet in the head+body length.
Madla's skull is around 40cm, so this means his head measurement is actually a bit longer.
Thanks for the clarification and the info.
Sorry again for asking so many questions on Madla, Is the 40cm measurement was taken on the skull of Madla after his death or is the 40cm is estimated based on his head measurements ?
06-01-2014, 11:44 PM( This post was last modified: 06-01-2014, 11:47 PM by GrizzlyClaws )
(06-01-2014, 10:53 PM)'Apollo' Wrote:
(06-01-2014, 09:58 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(06-01-2014, 09:43 PM)'Apollo' Wrote:
(06-01-2014, 09:20 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Here is Guate's work, just scale the 38.3cm wild Amur skull up to 43cm, then you can see that the canine size also matches with the Duisburg Zoo specimen.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Yes as you said there is a symmetry in the tiger skull measurements.
But is it applicable for smaller subspecies of tigers too ? Wont they have slightly longer canines for the skull size ?
Do you have any measurements for Baikal ?
The 40cm skull measurement for Madla, is it taken when he was live or dead ?
The island tigers shouldn't take into account since their conspecification with the mainland tigers is still debatable. Amur and Bengal can be compared to each other as they both belong to the mainland tiger clade.
Baikal stands at 4 feet tall and being 8 feet in the head+body length.
Madla's skull is around 40cm, so this means his head measurement is actually a bit longer.
Thanks for the clarification and the info.
Sorry again for asking so many questions on Madla, Is the 40cm measurement was taken on the skull of Madla after his death or is the 40cm is estimated based on his head measurements ?
Madla's skull measurement was based on a rough guesstimation, that's why i think his head measurement with flesh should be actually longer than his skull measurement.
(06-01-2014, 09:20 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Here is Guate's work, just scale the 38.3cm wild Amur skull up to 43cm, then you can see that the canine size also matches with the Duisburg Zoo specimen.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Yes as you said there is a symmetry in the tiger skull measurements.
But is it applicable for smaller subspecies of tigers too ? Wont they have slightly longer canines for the skull size ?
Do you have any measurements for Baikal ?
The 40cm skull measurement for Madla, is it taken when he was live or dead ?
The island tigers shouldn't take into account since their conspecification with the mainland tigers is still debatable. Amur and Bengal can be compared to each other as they both belong to the mainland tiger clade.
Baikal stands at 4 feet tall and being 8 feet in the head+body length.
Madla's skull is around 40cm, so this means his head measurement is actually a bit longer.
Thanks for the clarification and the info.
Sorry again for asking so many questions on Madla, Is the 40cm measurement was taken on the skull of Madla after his death or is the 40cm is estimated based on his head measurements ?
Madla's skull measurement was based on a rough guesstimation, that's why i think his head measurement with flesh should be actually longer than his skull measurement.
Thanks alot for patiently answering my question Grizzlyclaws.
(06-01-2014, 01:05 PM)'Apollo' Wrote: Tall and huge lions
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I think is fair to say that this are not wild lions, this are canned lions, and this is more obvious with the first one, as there are not wild white lions, all are feed by humans.
I think is fair to say that this are not wild lions, this are canned lions, and this is more obvious with the first one, as there are not wild white lions, all are feed by humans.
If these are canned lions, then I feel sorry for them.
Poor guys waiting to be shot by a filthy millionaire.
Here is a video from the son of sabre, called thunder. Apparently almost 900 pounds. Personally I think that most owners of big cats in captivity exaggerate or over estimated the wheights of their big cats. Sure, thunder looks definitely MASSIVE, but almost 900 pounds? Exaggerated and we don´t even know, if he was neutered.
06-03-2014, 06:40 PM( This post was last modified: 06-04-2014, 10:02 AM by Apollo )
Credits to Vodmeister
Sabre had two sons, Thor and Thunder. Thor's weight is between 408-454 kg (900-1000 lbs) and is said to weigh in at exactly 435 kg (969 lbs.). Thunder's weight is unknown but he's also estimated around the 408 kg (900 lbs) mark or more. The pictures that are posted on them prove that neither are obese.
(06-01-2014, 04:22 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: This guy was stated to have 90mm upper canine from the gumline, but the only thing needs to be clarified is the straight line or front curve.
90mm upto gumline is freakishly large.
Is it the longest measurement for any tiger till gumline ?
Do you have the total length of that canine (tip to root) ?
Yeah, it is perhaps the longest known record for Panthera.
According to peter, the straight line is probably unlikely, maybe in front curve. If so, that would make the canine about 80mm in the straight line from the gumline, or 90mm in the straight line from the skull.
From the tip to root, maybe up to 168mm.
Do we have any other measurements from this tiger like Headbody length, shoulder height, chest girth etc ?
What is the general method of measuring canines of live sedated panthera (not from the dead panthera skulls), is it straight line or is it front curve ?
The head+body length is 220cm and the shoulder height is 110cm, while the chest girth is unknown, but he looked quite bulky for his size.
About in the straight line or front curve, both methods are applicable.
Thanks for the measurements Grizzly claws.
Based on these measurements I think Duisburg Zoo tiger is still smaller than Baikal.
The canine measurement in Madla (80mm upto gumline) is it straight line or curved ?
Madla's canine is 75mm from the gumline in the straight line, so it is slightly smaller than "Amur".
Basically this tiger and Madla have the similar skull/canine proportion despite this one is a captive Amur and another one is a wild Bengal. Since the tiger species is very symmetric in term of the body proportion.
Madla has 40cm skull with 75mm canine, and this guy has 43cm skull with 80mm canine.
Thanks for the info grizzly claws.
Here is Guate's work, just scale the 38.3cm wild Amur skull up to 43cm, then you can see that the canine size also matches with the Duisburg Zoo specimen.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Yes as you said there is a symmetry in the tiger skull measurements.
But is it applicable for smaller subspecies of tigers too ? Wont they have slightly longer canines for the skull size ?
Do you have any measurements for Baikal ?
The 40cm skull measurement for Madla, is it taken when he was live or dead ?
Canine length is not a good sign to use for body size or skull size, simply because of canine ware and tear. A captive tiger should always have larger claws and canines. They mostly eat premade food, never have to fight for it. They are also given large chunks of meat without the bones. Wild tigers and lions continually ware their teeth down and even measuring a world record wild canine, like madlas, it could of quite possible been larger, so who knows for sure. Obviously the ware and tear happen extremely gradually and its not like a big cat is going to ware down 50% of its canine in 3 years, but it may have a affect on exact measurements.
(06-01-2014, 08:29 AM)'Apollo' Wrote: 90mm upto gumline is freakishly large.
Is it the longest measurement for any tiger till gumline ?
Do you have the total length of that canine (tip to root) ?
Yeah, it is perhaps the longest known record for Panthera.
According to peter, the straight line is probably unlikely, maybe in front curve. If so, that would make the canine about 80mm in the straight line from the gumline, or 90mm in the straight line from the skull.
From the tip to root, maybe up to 168mm.
Do we have any other measurements from this tiger like Headbody length, shoulder height, chest girth etc ?
What is the general method of measuring canines of live sedated panthera (not from the dead panthera skulls), is it straight line or is it front curve ?
The head+body length is 220cm and the shoulder height is 110cm, while the chest girth is unknown, but he looked quite bulky for his size.
About in the straight line or front curve, both methods are applicable.
Thanks for the measurements Grizzly claws.
Based on these measurements I think Duisburg Zoo tiger is still smaller than Baikal.
The canine measurement in Madla (80mm upto gumline) is it straight line or curved ?
Madla's canine is 75mm from the gumline in the straight line, so it is slightly smaller than "Amur".
Basically this tiger and Madla have the similar skull/canine proportion despite this one is a captive Amur and another one is a wild Bengal. Since the tiger species is very symmetric in term of the body proportion.
Madla has 40cm skull with 75mm canine, and this guy has 43cm skull with 80mm canine.
Thanks for the info grizzly claws.
Here is Guate's work, just scale the 38.3cm wild Amur skull up to 43cm, then you can see that the canine size also matches with the Duisburg Zoo specimen.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Yes as you said there is a symmetry in the tiger skull measurements.
But is it applicable for smaller subspecies of tigers too ? Wont they have slightly longer canines for the skull size ?
Do you have any measurements for Baikal ?
The 40cm skull measurement for Madla, is it taken when he was live or dead ?
Canine length is not a good sign to use for body size or skull size, simply because of canine ware and tear. A captive tiger should always have larger claws and canines. They mostly eat premade food, never have to fight for it. They are also given large chunks of meat without the bones. Wild tigers and lions continually ware their teeth down and even measuring a world record wild canine, like madlas, it could of quite possible been larger, so who knows for sure. Obviously the ware and tear happen extremely gradually and its not like a big cat is going to ware down 50% of its canine in 3 years, but it may have a affect on exact measurements.
Yeah, that's why i still believe that the 90mm canine could be measured in the straight line, since the captive tiger didn't use its canine as much as its wild counterpart.
If Madla was a captive specimen, then his canine could be considerably longer as well.
