|
Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws
|
 
@GrizzlyClaws :
About #609 and #610: I just come to notice this: #609: african lion's fang weight: 55,9 gram #610: Sumatra tiger's fangs weight: 78,6 gram both .i.e. 39,3 gram the weight of only one tiger's fang. 55,9 gram against 39,3 gram. Why is the difference so great ? The length difference is weak (11 cm for the lion, 10 cm as concerns the Sumatra tiger). The bottom of the lion's fang is narrower. The Sumatra tiger's fang is perhaps a little more curved. So what ? I cannot understand why the weight difference is so great. (08-13-2017, 10:44 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws : Maybe the island tiger got proportionally lighter fangs, also more curved compared to their mainland cousins. The densest Amur tiger fang at 10 cm is almost 70 grams, while a fully solid lion fang at 10 cm should get 50 grams as well.
@GrizzlyClaws :
About #625: I have never noticed how the difference between the subspecies of the tigers could be so great: 70 grams against 39 almost, .i.e. twice as many (+ 80% in fact) ! An average lion seems, with 55 grams, to have an intermediate weight between these two extremes. But clearly, the tiger tops the list. Till now, I confess I payed attention essentially to the length of the fangs. Error ! (08-13-2017, 11:13 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws : Here is a Amur tiger lower fang, 10.3 cm long and 3.2 cm wide, it looks damaged and worn, but still weighing at 67 grams. Definitely one of the densest big cat fangs in my list.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (08-24-2017, 01:33 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @epaiva are these Bone Clones products as well? @GrizzlyClaws Yes my Friend they are Bone Clones products
I am pretty convinced that Bone Clones usually made the replicas for the average specimens.
Monstrous Siberian tiger compared with the Bone Clones replicas.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(08-26-2017, 05:32 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Monstrous Siberian tiger compared with the Bone Clones replicas.@GrizzlyClaws I totally agree with you they look very small compared to the monster tooth, it must have been a Huge Siberian Tiger, many of the African Lion and Siberian Tiger teeth you have posted are are a lot bigger than the Bone clone replicas, I don´t understand why Bone clone don´t use the largest teeth of each species. Smilodon populator and Smilodon fatalis are too large to compare them with other prehistoric and modern day big cats. (08-26-2017, 07:45 PM)epaiva Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws Maybe it could belong a to a 900 pounds specimen as large as the Cave lion, we never known. Since the average male Homo sapiens is slightly less than 6 feet tall and weighs about 150-180 pounds, yet we can have the exceptional specimen like the Big Show who is close to 7 feet tall and weighs over 400 pounds in his prime. BTW, since the Smilodon populator and Smilodon fatalis fossils are scarce, they might make the replica out of the largest available specimen, while definitely using the random specimens from the captivity for the modern lions and tigers.
African Lions skull in Museo de Zoologia de Facultad de Ciencias de la UCV, Caracas, Venezuela
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author length of skull 34 cm wide of skull 23 cm length of upper fangs 5,5 cm it is missing the other upper canine length of lower fangs 4 - 4,1 cm Skull came from Caricuao Zoo in Caracas, Venezuela |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |