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.
Do you also think that lion canine belongs to a larger animal than tiger?
That tiger canine belongs to a historical Amoyen tiger in North China, and the crown part below the gumline is similar for both animals, and the lion should be turned out to be a larger animal.
And the jag canine in the middle likely belongs to a large 100 kg male.
Very likely. There is a relation between upper canine size, skull size and body size in big cats, but it's slightly different in every species. Tigers have relatively (upper canine length divided by condylobasal length or greatest total skull length) longer canines than lions. The upper canine length of an average male Sumatran tiger more or less compares to the upper canine length of an average male African lion (length and width). This should tell you something about 'relative' regarding upper canine length, as an average male Sumatran tiger has a greatest total skull length of just over 310,00 mm., whereas the greatest total skull length in an average male African lion is over 350,00 mm.
I went over what I have and found 9 skulls of male lions with an upper canine length of 60,00 mm. and over. These 9 averaged 63,10 mm. in upper canine length (range 60,00 - 67,00). In greatest total skull length, they averaged 371,17 mm. (range 354,57 - 384,55). Of these 9 skulls, 6 were from wild animals.
As to the width of the upper canines at the insertion in the upper jaw (measured from front to back). I found 13 skulls of male lions of which the upper canines had a width of 27,50 mm. or more at the insertion. These 13 males averaged 28,71 mm. (range 27,50 - 31,00). In greatest total skull length, they averaged 369,64 mm. (range 345,70 - 408,00). Of these 13 animals, 7 had been born and bred in captivity.
One could conclude that wild male lions have slightly longer upper canines than their captive relatives. In width, measured at the insertion, there seems to be no difference. Captive male lions, if anything, seem to have wider upper canines. As they also have significantly wider skulls (referring to the arches), one could conclude that captivity seems to affect both the width of the skull and the width of the canines. The thickest upper canines (31,00 mm.), to be sure, belonged to a skull of a wild male lion from Tanzania. This although his skull (365,56 mm.) was not exceptional in length.
In tigers, it's the other way round, meaning that the upper canines of wild tigers are both longer and (quite a bit) wider than those of their captive relatives (this at the level of averages). The difference seems to be significant. The reason is that tigers, as solitary big game hunters, need specific tools. More so than lions, who live in groups. Uppercaninewise, one could conclude that it's use it or lose it in tigers. Not quite true for lions, so it seems.
Anyhow. The question was if a male lion with a long and strong upper canine could be a larger animal than a tiger with a upper canine of similar length and width. Based on what I saw, I would get to a clear yes. Male lions with long and thick upper canines average about 370 mm. in greatest total skull length. I didn't finish the tables on tigers, but my guess for now is that it's quite different. All this without quite a bit of overlap as a result of individual variation, of course.
As to a relation between greatest total skull length and body size in big cats. Based on what I have, I'd say that it's weak, but real. My guess for now is more so in lions than in tigers.
I also notice that lion-leopard-jaguar group all has proportionally narrower canine root, which is opposite to the tiger canine.
From a morphological perspective, we can conclude that the lion-leopard-jaguar belong to the same evolutionary branch within the genus Panthera, tiger has a unique branch of its own, whereas the snow leopard is intermediate between the tiger and lion-leopard-jaguar group.
Maybe the narrower nasal structure has resulted with the broader canine root, because it has left more room for the canine root?
That would be my guess as well, why else would they have a narrower nasal structure? Cats don't posses a great sense of smell compared to Canines so it's not their most important sense, they could easily substitute a piece of it for a more advantageous killing mechanism. But if so, the next question of course is why don't we see this in other panthera species?
The tiger is the only big cat species who possesses this morphological trait that differed from other pantherine members.
Maybe it has to do with the evolutionary trait, since the tiger is a pantherine cat who was purely originated in Asia, while the lion-leopard-jaguar group's ultimate origin was always in Africa. Since their common ancestor was evolved in the vast savanna in Africa, so the sense of smell might play a bigger role.
The tiger is the only big cat species who possesses this morphological trait that differed from other pantherine members.
Maybe it has to do with the evolutionary trait, since the tiger is a pantherine cat who was purely originated in Asia, while the lion-leopard-jaguar group's ultimate origin was always in Africa. Since their common ancestor was evolved in the vast savanna in Africa, so the sense of smell might play a bigger role.
But even so, you would think that an Indian or Amur Leopards would show the same evolutionary traits since they have inhabited the same territories as the tiger for long enough to show convergent evolution.
I wonder if said sub species differ in the nasal and canine department compared to their African counterparts. I'd specifically be interested in Asiatic Lions and Sri Lankan Leopards as well.
From what I've seen, some forest/jungle dwelling members of the lion-leopard-jaguar group are indeed showing some convergence, but that's still some individual basis.
Unlike the tiger, where the narrow nasal structure and broad canine root are manifested as a universal trait.
Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
(12-31-2017, 05:29 AM)M Garfield Wrote: Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
(12-31-2017, 05:29 AM)M Garfield Wrote: Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
Still wasnt able to show proof of anything ^
Hey man, not my fault, the dude I just talked to doesn't have the original site cuz i guess from what they're sayin it changed. But go click on what I posted, do you see where it says zoologist, an 24 years experience, thats him I think. An type in Leeds in google and stuff, youll see threads pop up of lion guys talkin about it, so it was real. But you seem like to much of an uptight bro to really assess this stuff, so that ok.
(12-31-2017, 05:29 AM)M Garfield Wrote: Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
Still wasnt able to show proof of anything ^
Hey man, not my fault, the dude I just talked to doesn't have the original site cuz i guess from what they're sayin it changed. But go click on what I posted, do you see where it says zoologist, an 24 years experience, thats him I think. An type in Leeds in google and stuff, youll see threads pop up of lion guys talkin about it, so it was real. But you seem like to much of an uptight bro to really assess this stuff, so that ok.
Umm, there are hundreds of zoologists with 25 years experience, nor do i care about lierweb. I cant find anything with leeds and lion guys—i mean you talking about it. Thats your damn problem you cant find it.
(12-31-2017, 05:29 AM)Garfield Wrote: Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
Well, peter's knowledge in based on the real measurement, not armchair expertise.
He did measure some really large male lion skulls, but its canine teeth are not exceptional compared to that of the tiger.
BTW, I would be gleeful to see if we could manage to find some exceptional sized lion canine teeth.
(12-31-2017, 05:29 AM)Garfield Wrote: Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
Well, peter's knowledge in based on the real measurement, not armchair expertise.
He did measure some really large male lion skulls, but its canine teeth are not exceptional compared to that of the tiger.
BTW, I would be gleeful to see if we could manage to find some exceptional sized lion canine teeth.
Bro a zoologist is not armchair stuff, its a zoologist that took real measurements Do you want that post again? I was just lookin through the thread an ran into another comment on teeth beeing thicker. Why would he make this stuff up man, makes no sense.
"The fighting ability is based about its hunting anatomy similar to the tiger species but with genetic instinctive corruption.
Here its hunting evolution is corrupted from pure hunter to pack survivor compromise.
The documentation of tactical awareness, energy conservation, playing dead, peak fitness awareness and cooperation all lead me to believe that the tiger would be foolish to engage such an aware adversary.
Other observations reveal shorter much broader canines at the jaw interface.
It is apparent that some bigcats often break their tusks while engaged in such fights but this appears to be absent within Tom lions.
It is quite possible that the greater anchoring at the jawbone is beneficial when trying to tear killed prey away from other competitors within the pride.
Others could argue that the canines have evolved thicker for fighting but this would be pure hypothesis at this time."
(12-31-2017, 05:29 AM)Garfield Wrote: Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
Well, peter's knowledge in based on the real measurement, not armchair expertise.
He did measure some really large male lion skulls, but its canine teeth are not exceptional compared to that of the tiger.
BTW, I would be gleeful to see if we could manage to find some exceptional sized lion canine teeth.
Bro a zoologist is not armchair stuff, its a zoologist that took real measurements Do you want that post again? I was just lookin through the thread an ran into another comment on teeth beeing thicker. Why would he make this stuff up man, makes no sense.
"The fighting ability is based about its hunting anatomy similar to the tiger species but with genetic instinctive corruption.
Here its hunting evolution is corrupted from pure hunter to pack survivor compromise.
The documentation of tactical awareness, energy conservation, playing dead, peak fitness awareness and cooperation all lead me to believe that the tiger would be foolish to engage such an aware adversary.
Other observations reveal shorter much broader canines at the jaw interface.
It is apparent that some bigcats often break their tusks while engaged in such fights but this appears to be absent within Tom lions.
It is quite possible that the greater anchoring at the jawbone is beneficial when trying to tear killed prey away from other competitors within the pride.
Others could argue that the canines have evolved thicker for fighting but this would be pure hypothesis at this time."
Armchair just like your lazy ass. This is anecdotal. Please show us legit shit thank you.
So this one “alleged zoologist” who has unknown credentials and most likely no experience with any actual wild cats is supposed to override actual teeth with measurements and weights provided?
It’s fairly simple, you have mounds of data in front of you, find lion teeth at similar size and compare them with the tiger teeth and prove your point.
12-31-2017, 07:46 AM( This post was last modified: 12-31-2017, 08:04 AM by Garfield )
(12-31-2017, 06:18 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(12-31-2017, 05:29 AM)Garfield Wrote: Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
Well, peter's knowledge in based on the real measurement, not armchair expertise.
He did measure some really large male lion skulls, but its canine teeth are not exceptional compared to that of the tiger.
BTW, I would be gleeful to see if we could manage to find some exceptional sized lion canine teeth.
Bro u cant just go on this site, you check out some other places an bam, you run into just what that zoologist was sayin.
Lion on right has thicker teeth tiger longer
*This image is copyright of its original author
Actually not sure bout this one but both look pretty good
*This image is copyright of its original author
Lion on the bottom siberian on the top
*This image is copyright of its original author
cant see teeth to good here but lion teeth on the left look thicker from here
(12-31-2017, 05:29 AM)Garfield Wrote: Ok guys, but remember not sayin the other data is wrong, but um trustin a zoologist over just anyone, an it was 40 different lion skulls where this dude measured the teeth, not just a dozen. An not sure if anyone has a bunch of Kruger lions teeth on here either, or those big guys from the Craters. Again could be true u guys gut some thicker tiger teeth, ok, but you's can't prove it wrong the other guy doesn't have real measurements of thicker lion teeth either.
As for that zoologist, I got back to a lion dude, an he don't have the original site where it said Leeds, but they claim its legit an it said fo sure, so all we gut is Tiger Territory, owner talks about a zoologist she hired on it, you can see it here, so thats at least legit. So this what I gut for now, http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
An to make the tiger bros happy, this dude ain't fake, I saw where he thinks from his own research that the tiger is 47lbs heavier on average than the lion. So check that out, u guys should like that, its his own research, Ill try to find that for yas.
Well, peter's knowledge in based on the real measurement, not armchair expertise.
He did measure some really large male lion skulls, but its canine teeth are not exceptional compared to that of the tiger.
BTW, I would be gleeful to see if we could manage to find some exceptional sized lion canine teeth.
Bro u cant just go on this site, you check out some other places an bam, you run into just what that zoologist was sayin.
Lion on right has thicker teeth tiger longer
*This image is copyright of its original author
Actually not sure bout this one but both look pretty good
*This image is copyright of its original author
Lion on the bottom siberian on the top
*This image is copyright of its original author
cant see teeth to good here but lion teeth on the left look thicker from here
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is just a few there's a lot more than this
None of these pictures show anything
First picture, I can hardly even see the teeth. But they look the same in thickness.
Second picture, That is actually quite a bias picture. It is taken a bit from the front. As we all well know, the canine will look smaller at such a angle. But even with the cherry picking, i cant see a difference.
Third picture, No difference.
Fourth picture, cant see anything and the lions skull is very big anyways.
Also, i can cherry pick too. Look:
