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.
(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:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Bro theres more, just ran into this one clearly shows what that expert was sayin, the lion tooth is thicker an shorter
*This image is copyright of its original author
An you tell me which one of the above teeth is going to break first under pressure gonna be the longer one man
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Garfield
And yet again, that picture doesnt show the lion having thicker canines.
"break first under pressure gonna be the longer one man"
Hmm, that is an estimate "that we never broke", and not just that, but how come the sabertooth is just as strong as a tiger?..
Bro u think everything is fake if it in favor of the lion that a joke Seriously man, anybody with eyes on their head can see that last lion had the thicker but shorter teeth, an most of the tigers tooth was like totally longer an way thinner at the tips so sorry bro its simple physics, an elongated object cannot withstand the same pressure as a shortened object not rocket science man
An lion hunt those big buffalo that two ton beast baby pullin on your tooth you cant be havin those long canines like that, a tigers long tooth would bust clean off against the pressure of a 2,000lb buffalo.
He may not know that gaur and water buffalo are larger than capes, but realistically when tackling large prey, the throat is all but a guaranteed finisher, but the horns make it far more risky, usually they must go through the thick hide to finally finish the kill if they get that lucky. The throat is usually off limits unless the victim is worn out.
No, some historical Manchurian monsters had absolutely terrifying canine teeth in the absolute magnitude.
With such upper canine tooth weighed up to 300 grams, they could likely perform the one bite kill against a 2000 lbs bovid.
Ok but bro if we always be goin back in time I mean we can take some super big Barbary or cape lion an those also had super thick an huge teeth. So I mean I dont know, like what if Barbary werent extinct an they breeded them as much as the siberians in captivity I mean we'd have some super lions all over the place.
All these studies ain't not wrong lion can take more pressure, u check out even this real fight in the towers of london, a captive out of shape Asiaic lion almost wins vs two wild tigers, an at the end the lion woundn't stop fighting as it locked jaws with the tiger both were latched on with all their might pullin on eachother and who's tooth gave way first...the tigers it broke clean off an it was fresh from the wild.
12-31-2017, 10:04 AM( This post was last modified: 12-31-2017, 11:11 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(12-31-2017, 09:47 AM)Pckts Wrote: He may not know that gaur and water buffalo are larger than capes, but realistically when tackling large prey, the throat is all but a guaranteed finisher, but the horns make it far more risky, usually they must go through the thick hide to finally finish the kill if they get that lucky. The throat is usually off limits unless the victim is worn out.
I heard that some freaks from the northern Bengal population can rival the legendary Manchurian tigers, but I haven't seen many of their canine teeth in a proper scale.
Assume if some northern Bengal freaks have the same sized canine teeth as the Manchurian monsters which are several folds amplified compared to a regular Bengal.
If bite on the right place, he would have instantly killed the gaur as his bite could simply crush the windpipe in a snapshot. Whereas a regular tiger or lion would need more time to wear the bovid down in a lone wolf attack, since it could possibly turn out to be potentially more dangerous as the bovid could possibly loosen it and gore back with relentless onslaught.
Those freak Manchurians and northern Bengals were probably evolved into that fashion to be a legit big game hunter.
No, some historical Manchurian monsters had absolutely terrifying canine teeth in the absolute magnitude.
With such upper canine tooth weighed up to 300 grams, they could likely perform the one bite kill against a 2000 lbs bovid.
Ok but bro if we always be goin back in time I mean we can take some super big Barbary or cape lion an those also had super thick an huge teeth. So I mean I dont know, like what if Barbary werent extinct an they breeded them as much as the siberians in captivity I mean we'd have some super lions all over the place.
All these studies ain't not wrong lion can take more pressure, u check out even this real fight in the towers of london, a captive out of shape Asiaic lion almost wins vs two wild tigers, an at the end the lion woundn't stop fighting as it locked jaws with the tiger both were latched on with all their might pullin on eachother and who's tooth gave way first...the tigers it broke clean off an it was fresh from the wild.
No, some historical Manchurian monsters had absolutely terrifying canine teeth in the absolute magnitude.
With such upper canine tooth weighed up to 300 grams, they could likely perform the one bite kill against a 2000 lbs bovid.
Ok but bro if we always be goin back in time I mean we can take some super big Barbary or cape lion an those also had super thick an huge teeth. So I mean I dont know, like what if Barbary werent extinct an they breeded them as much as the siberians in captivity I mean we'd have some super lions all over the place.
All these studies ain't not wrong lion can take more pressure, u check out even this real fight in the towers of london, a captive out of shape Asiaic lion almost wins vs two wild tigers, an at the end the lion woundn't stop fighting as it locked jaws with the tiger both were latched on with all their might pullin on eachother and who's tooth gave way first...the tigers it broke clean off an it was fresh from the wild.
Haven't seen many Barbary/Cape canine teeth, but the largest tiger canines are only rivalled by those of the largest prehistoric lions.
Look to be fair an cuz u guys probably know more than me, um not sayin there isn't a tigers out there with massive teeth like a super Siberian I bet there is an probably that tiger would whip your average lion my problem is what about matchin it against a massive lion to make it fair cuz there are big ones out there thats all, but anyways yeah I had seen a few big Barbary teeth they looked super long an thick an the zoologist guy said their super stout, so I dont know.
(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:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Bro theres more, just ran into this one clearly shows what that expert was sayin, the lion tooth is thicker an shorter
*This image is copyright of its original author
An you tell me which one of the above teeth is going to break first under pressure gonna be the longer one man
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Garfield
And yet again, that picture doesnt show the lion having thicker canines.
"break first under pressure gonna be the longer one man"
Hmm, that is an estimate "that we never broke", and not just that, but how come the sabertooth is just as strong as a tiger?..
Bro u think everything is fake if it in favor of the lion that a joke Seriously man, anybody with eyes on their head can see that last lion had the thicker but shorter teeth, an most of the tigers tooth was like totally longer an way thinner at the tips so sorry bro its simple physics, an elongated object cannot withstand the same pressure as a shortened object not rocket science man
An lion hunt those big buffalo that two ton beast baby pullin on your tooth you cant be havin those long canines like that, a tigers long tooth would bust clean off against the pressure of a 2,000lb buffalo.
When did i say it is fake? Everything fro u is fake tho. Its not a elongated object when it bites down. It is actually perfectly straight with the angle. Tigers do take down big buffalo to.
No, some historical Manchurian monsters had absolutely terrifying canine teeth in the absolute magnitude.
With such upper canine tooth weighed up to 300 grams, they could likely perform the one bite kill against a 2000 lbs bovid.
Ok but bro if we always be goin back in time I mean we can take some super big Barbary or cape lion an those also had super thick an huge teeth. So I mean I dont know, like what if Barbary werent extinct an they breeded them as much as the siberians in captivity I mean we'd have some super lions all over the place.
All these studies ain't not wrong lion can take more pressure, u check out even this real fight in the towers of london, a captive out of shape Asiaic lion almost wins vs two wild tigers, an at the end the lion woundn't stop fighting as it locked jaws with the tiger both were latched on with all their might pullin on eachother and who's tooth gave way first...the tigers it broke clean off an it was fresh from the wild.
Noone cares if a canine broke. A healthy tiger's canines will never break, unless you are purposely trying too. It could have been a simple unhealthy tiger, old, it couldve been chewing on something in distress for the 12 months from the wild etc.. Noone gives a shit.
12-31-2017, 11:01 AM( This post was last modified: 12-31-2017, 11:23 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(12-31-2017, 10:19 AM)paul cooper Wrote:
(12-31-2017, 09:29 AM)Garfield Wrote:
(12-31-2017, 09:14 AM)paul cooper Wrote:
(12-31-2017, 09:00 AM)Garfield Wrote:
(12-31-2017, 08:37 AM)paul cooper Wrote:
(12-31-2017, 07:46 AM)Garfield Wrote:
(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
*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:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Bro theres more, just ran into this one clearly shows what that expert was sayin, the lion tooth is thicker an shorter
*This image is copyright of its original author
An you tell me which one of the above teeth is going to break first under pressure gonna be the longer one man
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Garfield
And yet again, that picture doesnt show the lion having thicker canines.
"break first under pressure gonna be the longer one man"
Hmm, that is an estimate "that we never broke", and not just that, but how come the sabertooth is just as strong as a tiger?..
Bro u think everything is fake if it in favor of the lion that a joke Seriously man, anybody with eyes on their head can see that last lion had the thicker but shorter teeth, an most of the tigers tooth was like totally longer an way thinner at the tips so sorry bro its simple physics, an elongated object cannot withstand the same pressure as a shortened object not rocket science man
An lion hunt those big buffalo that two ton beast baby pullin on your tooth you cant be havin those long canines like that, a tigers long tooth would bust clean off against the pressure of a 2,000lb buffalo.
When did i say it is fake? Everything fro u is fake tho. Its not a elongated object when it bites down. It is actually perfectly straight with the angle. Tigers do take down big buffalo to.
For a regular tiger, it would be an extraordinary feat to kill a buffalo, whilst for those freaks from Manchuria and Northeast India, they were probably designed to kill the buffalo and other big preys in a regular basis.
According to @peter, the monstrous tigers in the past could weigh twice as much, their skull was also twice as heavy. IMO, the proportion of their canine teeth could reach an even greater magnitude as @tigerluver just discovered a pattern that the freak specimens could have been built with different proportion compared to other regular specimens. The freak specimens among the tiger species could possibly manifest with proportionally much greater reinforcement in mass/density of the canine teeth.
IMO, they could possibly have much heavier canine teeth in proportion compared to other regular tigers, and they were more designed to tackle against bigger preys than other tigers. Now, with the lackluster of the big preys in the current Amur tiger domain, it is plausible that the Manchurian monsters are now functionally extinct in the wild, and those smaller remaining Amur tigers are still making its way to keep struggling for its survival.
(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:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Bro theres more, just ran into this one clearly shows what that expert was sayin, the lion tooth is thicker an shorter
*This image is copyright of its original author
An you tell me which one of the above teeth is going to break first under pressure gonna be the longer one man
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Garfield
And yet again, that picture doesnt show the lion having thicker canines.
"break first under pressure gonna be the longer one man"
Hmm, that is an estimate "that we never broke", and not just that, but how come the sabertooth is just as strong as a tiger?..
Bro u think everything is fake if it in favor of the lion that a joke Seriously man, anybody with eyes on their head can see that last lion had the thicker but shorter teeth, an most of the tigers tooth was like totally longer an way thinner at the tips so sorry bro its simple physics, an elongated object cannot withstand the same pressure as a shortened object not rocket science man
An lion hunt those big buffalo that two ton beast baby pullin on your tooth you cant be havin those long canines like that, a tigers long tooth would bust clean off against the pressure of a 2,000lb buffalo.
When did i say it is fake? Everything fro u is fake tho. Its not a elongated object when it bites down. It is actually perfectly straight with the angle. Tigers do take down big buffalo to.
For a regular tiger, it would be an extraordinary feat to kill a buffalo, whilst from those freaks from Manchuria and Northeast India, they were probably designed to kill the buffalo and other big preys in a regular basis.
According to @peter, the monstrous tigers in the past could weigh twice as much, their skull was also twice as heavy. IMO, the proportion of their canine teeth could reach an even greater magnitude as @tigerluver just discovered a pattern that the freak specimens could have been built with different proportion compared to other regular specimens. The freak specimens among the tiger species could possibly manifest with proportionally much greater reinforcement in mass/density of the canine teeth.
IMO, they could possibly have much heavier canine teeth in proportion compared to other regular tigers, and they were more designed to tackle against bigger preys than other tigers. Now, with the lackluster of the big preys in the current Amur tiger domain, it is plausible that the Manchurian monsters are now functionally extinct in the wild, and those smaller remaining Amur tigers are still making its way to keep struggling for its survival.
