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.
Your last two questions (one in this thread and one in the extinction thread) take some time to answer. Time I need to go over all the photographs I have and time I now want to invest in something else (the difference between tigers in northern China, Manchuria and Russia). Hope you understand.
The jaguar skulls I saw, although often shorter than those of tigers and lions, were real big cat skulls. Even at 9-10 inches in greatest total length, female skulls were more robust than male leopard skulls of similar length. In length, there's overlap between both species, but not in robustness. Only very large male leopard skulls compare to a degree at times.
Jaguar canines are not longer, thicker or more curved than those of other big cats. My guess is they learned a skull bite is the best way to overcome resistance. One reason they developed in this direction could have been the average size of most wild prey animals they hunt. But maybe jaguars use skull bites because they are aware of their power. I know captive jaguars are astute animals who don't fear their larger relatives. In confidence, they don't lack and they also like a good brawl. Not quite decided on that one.
Jaguars could be big cats who lost size over the years. Must have been a recent development, as they kept their robustness (for no apparent reason). One indication is they know how to deal with large animals, but they struggle with agile and aggressive medium-sized animals like peccari's. Leopards, on the other hand, appear to be medium-sized cats who, in some regions, developed in the direction of big cats. In bone robustness, however, they definitely lack compared to jaguars. Even when they reach 200 pounds, and there's no doubt males in some regions do at times, they usually are not big-framed, but long and muscular. In this respect, they compare to tigers in a degree (skeletons of tigers are very similar to those of lions, but live animals often are a bit longer as a result of the muscular development of the limbs).
Lions are social animals who often hunt large prey animals in groups. Individuals don't need to kill quickly, that is. They need the tools to contact, catch, hold on and restrain the animal. This way of hunting usually takes more time, meaning they need to have the frame (and the skull) to withstand immense pressure. Wild lions, although a bit smaller than their captive relatives and a bit shorter than most tigers, very often are compact and muscular animals, not in the limbs, but in the chest, neck and upper part of the torso. A bit like power lifters, I'd say. The long maxillary bone could have been a result of the need to strengthen the facial part of the skull. The reason is the canines are not used to kill directly, but to grab, hold on and restrain. The pressure exercised by struggling large prey animals resulted in an adaption in that the maxillary bone is a bit longer and, near the os frontalis (the bone on top of the skull), wider and a bit thicker than in tiger skulls of similar length. In most skulls, you can see it at a glance. The maxillary bone usually narrows towards the rostrum, because the canines are not as developed as other parts of the face. Upper canines of wild lions, compared to those of tigers, usually are shorter and a bit more curved near the insertion in the jaw. They compare to strong hooks, but there is a lot of individual variation.
Tiger skulls of similar length usually as not as wide and robust in the centre, because they don't use the skull to lock on, hold and restrain, but to kill fast. Tiger skulls are platforms for the long canines. The upper canines often are straighter, longer and as strong or stronger as in lions, because they are used to kill large animals without help of others. For this reason, the upper skull is shorter, more vaulted, (relatively) wider and, near the rostrum, somewhat strengthened. Tiger skulls are jaw skulls, whereas lion skulls are face skulls. The difference in the sagittal crest is limited, because both need a solid anchor for the jaw and neck muscles. Lion crests could be a trifle higher, whereas tiger crests seem a bit wider, but that could be an impression only (I never measure the height and width of the sagittal crest).
All in all, I'd say that the relatively large skull of lions (and males in particular) could be a result of a mix between hunting (resulting in a strengthened and extended maxillary bone) and, in particular, sexuality (the need to display age, status and health in a pride). In the more solitary tiger, it is mainly about function (hunting). Hunting animals don't need extra-large skulls and frames, because of the need to limit the total weight. The reason is you need to get to your prey first. When you have contact, you need the ability to topple the animal and quickly kill it in order to prevent damage and loss of energy. Terrestrial hunting specialists (cats), for this reason, tend to have long bodies and relatively small skulls. In most cases, the skulls are big guns platforms. Lions are a bit different in this respect and the main reason, especially in males, could be pride life.
Jaguars, for relative bulk and proportions, compare to lions and tigers, but the reasons mentioned above do not seem to hold for them. There could be many reasons for their relative bulk, but my guess, as said before, is they are adapting downward. A medium-sized cat below 200 pounds is more than good enough to make a decent living in South America. They haven't quite finished, as some males easily exceed 300, but that occurs in regions with opportunities mostly.
In leopards, it could be the other way round. The reason for adaption in jaguars could be lack of large prey animals, whereas room for improvement (for lack of the their larger relatives) could be the trigger to move upwards in leopards. When tigers had been exterminated in Sariska, leopards quit hunting at night and dragging kills into trees. They also started killing competitors (hyena's and smaller predators) more often to underline the new order. When a Ranthambore tigress and a young male tiger from the same reserve were transferred to Sariska, leopards were a bit slow to get the message. One of the females, treed by the tigress, was found dead and eaten next morning.
Here's a large male jaguar:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I assume it is clear that the remarks about jaguars (and the other big cats) in this post are based on a bit of experience with skulls and captive animals and, in particular, on a lot of ideas. I could be very wrong, that is. Interested in the opinions of others.
(04-19-2018, 12:37 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 03:39 PM)Betty Wrote: Cave lion
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I think the lion claw overall looks straighter than the tiger claw.
The claws of the Cave lion look very lion-ish, there is no sign of convergence with the tiger claws at all.
Could it be an argument more in favour of the lion's lineage (with regard to the tiger's one) ?
Your last two questions (one in this thread and one in the extinction thread) take some time to answer. Time I need to go over all the photographs I have and time I now want to invest in something else (the difference between tigers in northern China, Manchuria and Russia). Hope you understand.
The jaguar skulls I saw, although often shorter than those of tigers and lions, were real big cat skulls. Even at 9-10 inches in greatest total length, female skulls were more robust than male leopard skulls of similar length. In length, there's overlap between both species, but not in robustness. Only very large male leopard skulls compare to a degree at times.
Jaguar canines are not longer, thicker or more curved than those of other big cats. My guess is they learned a skull bite is the best way to overcome resistance. One reason they developed in this direction could have been the average size of most wild prey animals they hunt. But maybe jaguars use skull bites because they are aware of their power. I know captive jaguars are astute animals who don't fear their larger relatives. In confidence, they don't lack and they also like a good brawl. Not quite decided on that one.
Jaguars could be big cats who lost size over the years. Must have been a recent development, as they kept their robustness (for no apparent reason). One indication is they know how to deal with large animals, but they struggle with agile and aggressive medium-sized animals like peccari's. Leopards, on the other hand, appear to be medium-sized cats who, in some regions, developed in the direction of big cats. In bone robustness, however, they definitely lack compared to jaguars. Even when they reach 200 pounds, and there's no doubt males in some regions do at times, they usually are not big-framed, but long and muscular. In this respect, they compare to tigers in a degree (skeletons of tigers are very similar to those of lions, but live animals often are a bit longer as a result of the muscular development of the limbs).
Lions are social animals who often hunt large prey animals in groups. Individuals don't need to kill quickly, that is. They need the tools to contact, catch, hold on and restrain the animal. This way of hunting usually takes more time, meaning they need to have the frame (and the skull) to withstand immense pressure. Wild lions, although a bit smaller than their captive relatives and a bit shorter than most tigers, very often are compact and muscular animals, not in the limbs, but in the chest, neck and upper part of the torso. A bit like power lifters, I'd say. The long maxillary bone could have been a result of the need to strengthen the facial part of the skull. The reason is the canines are not used to kill directly, but to grab, hold on and restrain. The pressure exercised by struggling large prey animals resulted in an adaption in that the maxillary bone is a bit longer and, near the os frontalis (the bone on top of the skull), wider and a bit thicker than in tiger skulls of similar length. In most skulls, you can see it at a glance. The maxillary bone usually narrows towards the rostrum, because the canines are not as developed as other parts of the face. Upper canines of wild lions, compared to those of tigers, usually are shorter and a bit more curved near the insertion in the jaw. They compare to strong hooks, but there is a lot of individual variation.
Tiger skulls of similar length usually as not as wide and robust in the centre, because they don't use the skull to lock on, hold and restrain, but to kill fast. Tiger skulls are platforms for the long canines. The upper canines often are straighter, longer and as strong or stronger as in lions, because they are used to kill large animals without help of others. For this reason, the upper skull is shorter, more vaulted, (relatively) wider and, near the rostrum, somewhat strengthened. Tiger skulls are jaw skulls, whereas lion skulls are face skulls. The difference in the sagittal crest is limited, because both need a solid anchor for the jaw and neck muscles. Lion crests could be a trifle higher, whereas tiger crests seem a bit wider, but that could be an impression only (I never measure the height and width of the sagittal crest).
All in all, I'd say that the relatively large skull of lions (and males in particular) could be a result of a mix between hunting (resulting in a strengthened and extended maxillary bone) and, in particular, sexuality (the need to display age, status and health in a pride). In the more solitary tiger, it is mainly about function (hunting). Hunting animals don't need extra-large skulls and frames, because of the need to limit the total weight. The reason is you need to get to your prey first. When you have contact, you need the ability to topple the animal and quickly kill it in order to prevent damage and loss of energy. Terrestrial hunting specialists (cats), for this reason, tend to have long bodies and relatively small skulls. In most cases, the skulls are big guns platforms. Lions are a bit different in this respect and the main reason, especially in males, could be pride life.
Jaguars, for relative bulk and proportions, compare to lions and tigers, but the reasons mentioned above do not seem to hold for them. There could be many reasons for their relative bulk, but my guess, as said before, is they are adapting downward. A medium-sized cat below 200 pounds is more than good enough to make a decent living in South America. They haven't quite finished, as some males easily exceed 300, but that occurs in regions with opportunities mostly.
In leopards, it could be the other way round. The reason for adaption in jaguars could be lack of large prey animals, whereas room for improvement (for lack of the their larger relatives) could be the trigger to move upwards in leopards. When tigers had been exterminated in Sariska, leopards quit hunting at night and dragging kills into trees. They also started killing competitors (hyena's and smaller predators) more often to underline the new order. When a Ranthambore tigress and a young male tiger from the same reserve were transferred to Sariska, leopards were a bit slow to get the message. One of the females, treed by the tigress, was found dead and eaten next morning.
Here's a large male jaguar:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I assume it is clear that the remarks about jaguars (and the other big cats) in this post are based on a bit of experience with skulls and captive animals and, in particular, on a lot of ideas. I could be very wrong, that is. Interested in the opinions of others.
(04-19-2018, 12:37 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 03:39 PM)Betty Wrote: Cave lion
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I think the lion claw overall looks straighter than the tiger claw.
The claws of the Cave lion look very lion-ish, there is no sign of convergence with the tiger claws at all.
Could it be an argument more in favour of the lion's lineage (with regard to the tiger's one) ?
Indeed, most Cave lions looked more lion-ish, although there were some degree of convergent tiger traits among some Cave lions.
