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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 5 Vote(s) - 4.4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tiger Predation

Apex Titan Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 07-22-2022, 05:15 PM by Apex Titan )

(07-21-2022, 09:04 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(07-21-2022, 07:18 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 08:51 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 05:55 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 10:47 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 06:05 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Indo-chinese tiger with his adult gaur kill:





Tigress and cubs with a bull gaur kill:





Aren't gaur in Indochinese region larger than those of other parts of Asia?

Yes, Indochinese gaur, along with Indian gaur are the largest gaurs on earth.

Interestingly, although Indochinese tigers are smaller than Bengal tigers, they routinely hunt and kill both adult gaur and banteng:

"HKK has South‐East Asia's highest diversity of large ungulates which include gaur, banteng, sambar, and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis); together these species compose 90.3% of tiger diet."

Based on the average sex and age class weights, and the number of kills in each class, the average weight of adult gaur kills was 737.8 kg and they composed 83.7% of the biomass of gaur killed by tigers. Similarly, the mean adult banteng killed weighted 652.2 kg and adults composed 85.6% of biomass of this species killed by tigers. Adults composed 48.8% of gaur and 79.4% of banteng killed by male tigers; whereas, adult gaur and banteng composed 41.1% and 37.8% of female kills, respectively."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6268


That's interesting. This must destroy the myths of tigers being deer specialist, having less strength, incapable of hunting large prey because they have long, less thick canines which could break easily unlike that of more stronger bodied,  stout canine lions.

I am not diverting topic. This topic is strictly tiger predation and in turn it helps us appreciate how these animals work, and also dispel misconceptions like these.

All studies on tiger feeding habits and predatory behaviour invariably show that tigers always go after the largest prey animals available. Wherever gaur, banteng and wild water buffalo are abundant, tigers routinely hunt them, and these large bovines are one of the tigers top favourite prey items.

Even the small Javan tigers weighing only 100 - 140 kg were known to routinely prey on adult Banteng, and also killed huge Banteng bulls weighing up to 825 kg! (Seidenstecker).

Gaur and especially wild water buffalo have been historically wiped out from many tiger reserves and regions, hence why tigers have to settle for deer and wild boar. Its all humans fault, as usual. 

Tigers are true big game specialists, their size, anatomy, musculature and weaponry is specifically built for hunting, subduing and killing large dangerous prey animals several times their own size and weight. This is why tigers, being solitary hunters of big game animals, have the longest and thickest canines of any extant terrestrial carnivore on earth.

This basically sums up the tiger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://archive.org/details/bigcatskingdomof0000brak

Karanth explains why it is more efficient and easier for tigers to hunt and kill large animals (Gaur, buffalo) instead of smaller animals (deer). In Nagarahole, where gaur are abundant, tigers routinely hunt and kill them, favouring gaur over the much smaller spotted deer. Whereas in other forests, where gaur are very scarce or extinct, tigers have to settle for hunting deer:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/T...frontcover

Hello, I have seen the data you present about Tigers preying on animals which most people think they’re not capable of and it’s simply amazing.

I wanted to ask, do you have a study from Karanth & Sunquist where it was shown that Tigers preyed on a sample of Gaurs which included several bulls of 1000kg??

I think the same study also showed that a significant percentage of the sample of the preyed Gaurs were adult males.

I am unable to find it, do you happen to have it and can you please share it?

Here's some sources stating that tigers prey on bull gaurs weighing 1000 kg. I'll post more data from Karanth and Sunquist when I have time.

Karanth and Sunquist state: In India's Nagarahole, gaurs are the main prey of tigers, including bulls weighing 1000 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do...1&type=pdf



*This image is copyright of its original author


This source was initially posted by GuateGojira in another thread:

"In Nagarahole National Park, the average weight of 83 tiger kills was 401 kg. This sample included several gaur weighing 1000 kg." (Sunquist, Wild Cats of the World):



*This image is copyright of its original author
Reply

Apex Titan Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 07-22-2022, 06:12 PM by Apex Titan )

(07-22-2022, 09:24 AM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-21-2022, 07:18 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 08:51 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 05:55 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 10:47 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 06:05 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Indo-chinese tiger with his adult gaur kill:





Tigress and cubs with a bull gaur kill:





Aren't gaur in Indochinese region larger than those of other parts of Asia?

Yes, Indochinese gaur, along with Indian gaur are the largest gaurs on earth.

Interestingly, although Indochinese tigers are smaller than Bengal tigers, they routinely hunt and kill both adult gaur and banteng:

"HKK has South‐East Asia's highest diversity of large ungulates which include gaur, banteng, sambar, and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis); together these species compose 90.3% of tiger diet."

Based on the average sex and age class weights, and the number of kills in each class, the average weight of adult gaur kills was 737.8 kg and they composed 83.7% of the biomass of gaur killed by tigers. Similarly, the mean adult banteng killed weighted 652.2 kg and adults composed 85.6% of biomass of this species killed by tigers. Adults composed 48.8% of gaur and 79.4% of banteng killed by male tigers; whereas, adult gaur and banteng composed 41.1% and 37.8% of female kills, respectively."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6268


That's interesting. This must destroy the myths of tigers being deer specialist, having less strength, incapable of hunting large prey because they have long, less thick canines which could break easily unlike that of more stronger bodied,  stout canine lions.

I am not diverting topic. This topic is strictly tiger predation and in turn it helps us appreciate how these animals work, and also dispel misconceptions like these.

All studies on tiger feeding habits and predatory behaviour invariably show that tigers always go after the largest prey animals available. Wherever gaur, banteng and wild water buffalo are abundant, tigers routinely hunt them, and these large bovines are one of the tigers top favourite prey items.

Even the small Javan tigers weighing only 100 - 140 kg were known to routinely prey on adult Banteng, and also killed huge Banteng bulls weighing up to 825 kg! (Seidenstecker).

Gaur and especially wild water buffalo have been historically wiped out from many tiger reserves and regions, hence why tigers have to settle for deer and wild boar. Its all humans fault, as usual. 

Tigers are true big game specialists, their size, anatomy, musculature and weaponry is specifically built for hunting, subduing and killing large dangerous prey animals several times their own size and weight. This is why tigers, being solitary hunters of big game animals, have the longest and thickest canines of any extant terrestrial carnivore on earth.

This basically sums up the tiger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://archive.org/details/bigcatskingdomof0000brak

Karanth explains why it is more efficient and easier for tigers to hunt and kill large animals (Gaur, buffalo) instead of smaller animals (deer). In Nagarahole, where gaur are abundant, tigers routinely hunt and kill them, favouring gaur over the much smaller spotted deer. Whereas in other forests, where gaur are very scarce or extinct, tigers have to settle for hunting deer:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/T...frontcover
Do you believe that tiger has very strong but also long canines?

Because I heard that tigers have narrower canines compared to lions, and hence not good for hunting reptiles, especially crocs.

People often refer to the croc killed by machli which lost 3 canines fighting and killing a single croc. 

I know this is not a lion vs tiger and my intention isn't reg that topic but it still raises a query on the adaptation of tigers on reptiles when we see lions having no such problems.

Machli never lost 3 canines from killing that crocodile. She lost her canines due to old age. 

In fact, after Machli had fought and killed that large crocodile, she killed 3 more crocodiles that season:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://natgeotraveller.in/fierce-encoun...d-to-head/


There is no evidence that even suggests that lions have "stronger" canines than tigers. Studies show that tigers have stronger canines than lions.

Scientific study proving that tigers have the strongest bite-force and canine strength of all the big cats:

Canine morphology in the larger Felidae: implications for feeding ecology

Overall, the canines become progressively stronger to bite forces with increasing body size and, thus, increasing bite forces and canine size. High correlation coefficients imply that canine strength to bite forces is highly constrained. Some of the slope allometry is evidently due to the low bending strength to estimated bite forces of the clouded leopard, as noted below. 

Normalizing the bending strengths for estimated bite forces changes the pattern slightly. The tiger still appears to have the strongest canines of all species in bending about both planes but its canine strength is only consistently significantly higher than those of the clouded leopard and the leopard (Table 8). The tiger has stronger canines than the puma in bending about the lateromedial plane, whereas the two are often non-significantly different in bending about the anteroposterior plane. Only towards the apex does the bending strength of the tiger’s canine significantly exceed that of the snow leopard in the lateromedial plane. 

The bending strengths in both planes are higher in the tiger than in the lion, albeit non-significantly so (Table 8), and the more robust canines of the tiger are evidently somewhat compromised by its very high bite force.

Tigers mainly employ two killing techniques, largely based on prey size (Mazák, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Smaller prey, up to approximately one half of the tiger’s body mass, are frequently killed with a powerful nape bite, often causing severe damage to the cervicals (Sunquist, 1981; Seidensticker & McGougal, 1993), and large prey are dispatched with a throat bite. 

The above appears congruent with the tigers very high bite force (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005; Wroe et al., 2005; Christiansen, 2007) and very large and strong canines. Overall, the lion appears slightly less extreme in both respects, and this could be owing to it preying on the same size-classes of animals in groups, rather than individually. 

https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/arti...ogin=false

Due to the tiger's size and being a solitary hunter of large animals, they have the largest and strongest canines of all the extant felids and the strongest biteforce. And because lions predominantly hunt large animals in groups, they don't need to have as large or as strong canines or bite-force as the tiger, who is a lone hunter.

So overall, the tiger has longer and more robust canines than lions.
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

(07-22-2022, 09:24 AM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-21-2022, 07:18 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 08:51 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 05:55 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 10:47 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 06:05 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Indo-chinese tiger with his adult gaur kill:





Tigress and cubs with a bull gaur kill:





Aren't gaur in Indochinese region larger than those of other parts of Asia?

Yes, Indochinese gaur, along with Indian gaur are the largest gaurs on earth.

Interestingly, although Indochinese tigers are smaller than Bengal tigers, they routinely hunt and kill both adult gaur and banteng:

"HKK has South‐East Asia's highest diversity of large ungulates which include gaur, banteng, sambar, and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis); together these species compose 90.3% of tiger diet."

Based on the average sex and age class weights, and the number of kills in each class, the average weight of adult gaur kills was 737.8 kg and they composed 83.7% of the biomass of gaur killed by tigers. Similarly, the mean adult banteng killed weighted 652.2 kg and adults composed 85.6% of biomass of this species killed by tigers. Adults composed 48.8% of gaur and 79.4% of banteng killed by male tigers; whereas, adult gaur and banteng composed 41.1% and 37.8% of female kills, respectively."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6268


That's interesting. This must destroy the myths of tigers being deer specialist, having less strength, incapable of hunting large prey because they have long, less thick canines which could break easily unlike that of more stronger bodied,  stout canine lions.

I am not diverting topic. This topic is strictly tiger predation and in turn it helps us appreciate how these animals work, and also dispel misconceptions like these.

All studies on tiger feeding habits and predatory behaviour invariably show that tigers always go after the largest prey animals available. Wherever gaur, banteng and wild water buffalo are abundant, tigers routinely hunt them, and these large bovines are one of the tigers top favourite prey items.

Even the small Javan tigers weighing only 100 - 140 kg were known to routinely prey on adult Banteng, and also killed huge Banteng bulls weighing up to 825 kg! (Seidenstecker).

Gaur and especially wild water buffalo have been historically wiped out from many tiger reserves and regions, hence why tigers have to settle for deer and wild boar. Its all humans fault, as usual. 

Tigers are true big game specialists, their size, anatomy, musculature and weaponry is specifically built for hunting, subduing and killing large dangerous prey animals several times their own size and weight. This is why tigers, being solitary hunters of big game animals, have the longest and thickest canines of any extant terrestrial carnivore on earth.

This basically sums up the tiger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://archive.org/details/bigcatskingdomof0000brak

Karanth explains why it is more efficient and easier for tigers to hunt and kill large animals (Gaur, buffalo) instead of smaller animals (deer). In Nagarahole, where gaur are abundant, tigers routinely hunt and kill them, favouring gaur over the much smaller spotted deer. Whereas in other forests, where gaur are very scarce or extinct, tigers have to settle for hunting deer:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/T...frontcover
Do you believe that tiger has very strong but also long canines?

Because I heard that tigers have narrower canines compared to lions, and hence not good for hunting reptiles, especially crocs.

People often refer to the croc killed by machli which lost 3 canines fighting and killing a single croc. 

I know this is not a lion vs tiger and my intention isn't reg that topic but it still raises a query on the adaptation of tigers on reptiles when we see lions having no such problems.
Where exactly did you “hear” that?
I know you’ve seen the multitude of Canines showing Tigers to be longer, thicker and heavier. 
Troll somewhere else
Reply

Bitishannah Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 07-22-2022, 06:48 PM by Bitishannah )

(07-22-2022, 06:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(07-22-2022, 09:24 AM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-21-2022, 07:18 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 08:51 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 05:55 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 10:47 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 06:05 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Indo-chinese tiger with his adult gaur kill:





Tigress and cubs with a bull gaur kill:





Aren't gaur in Indochinese region larger than those of other parts of Asia?

Yes, Indochinese gaur, along with Indian gaur are the largest gaurs on earth.

Interestingly, although Indochinese tigers are smaller than Bengal tigers, they routinely hunt and kill both adult gaur and banteng:

"HKK has South‐East Asia's highest diversity of large ungulates which include gaur, banteng, sambar, and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis); together these species compose 90.3% of tiger diet."

Based on the average sex and age class weights, and the number of kills in each class, the average weight of adult gaur kills was 737.8 kg and they composed 83.7% of the biomass of gaur killed by tigers. Similarly, the mean adult banteng killed weighted 652.2 kg and adults composed 85.6% of biomass of this species killed by tigers. Adults composed 48.8% of gaur and 79.4% of banteng killed by male tigers; whereas, adult gaur and banteng composed 41.1% and 37.8% of female kills, respectively."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6268


That's interesting. This must destroy the myths of tigers being deer specialist, having less strength, incapable of hunting large prey because they have long, less thick canines which could break easily unlike that of more stronger bodied,  stout canine lions.

I am not diverting topic. This topic is strictly tiger predation and in turn it helps us appreciate how these animals work, and also dispel misconceptions like these.

All studies on tiger feeding habits and predatory behaviour invariably show that tigers always go after the largest prey animals available. Wherever gaur, banteng and wild water buffalo are abundant, tigers routinely hunt them, and these large bovines are one of the tigers top favourite prey items.

Even the small Javan tigers weighing only 100 - 140 kg were known to routinely prey on adult Banteng, and also killed huge Banteng bulls weighing up to 825 kg! (Seidenstecker).

Gaur and especially wild water buffalo have been historically wiped out from many tiger reserves and regions, hence why tigers have to settle for deer and wild boar. Its all humans fault, as usual. 

Tigers are true big game specialists, their size, anatomy, musculature and weaponry is specifically built for hunting, subduing and killing large dangerous prey animals several times their own size and weight. This is why tigers, being solitary hunters of big game animals, have the longest and thickest canines of any extant terrestrial carnivore on earth.

This basically sums up the tiger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://archive.org/details/bigcatskingdomof0000brak

Karanth explains why it is more efficient and easier for tigers to hunt and kill large animals (Gaur, buffalo) instead of smaller animals (deer). In Nagarahole, where gaur are abundant, tigers routinely hunt and kill them, favouring gaur over the much smaller spotted deer. Whereas in other forests, where gaur are very scarce or extinct, tigers have to settle for hunting deer:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/T...frontcover
Do you believe that tiger has very strong but also long canines?

Because I heard that tigers have narrower canines compared to lions, and hence not good for hunting reptiles, especially crocs.

People often refer to the croc killed by machli which lost 3 canines fighting and killing a single croc. 

I know this is not a lion vs tiger and my intention isn't reg that topic but it still raises a query on the adaptation of tigers on reptiles when we see lions having no such problems.
Where exactly did you “hear” that?
I know you’ve seen the multitude of Canines showing Tigers to be longer, thicker and heavier. 
Troll somewhere else
You seem to be a hurt tiger fan. This is not trolling. It was a genuine doubt. I have already said this is not to be taken as tiger vs lion. Your response looks like that of a hurt fan rather than somebody who is interested in discussion.

You can search in carnivora for all of this. Specifically big cat vs croc interaction thread. It's too vast for me to quote. 

It was said that a tiger took many hours to kill a weakened mugger crocodile at the time of drought. You can check in big cat vs croc thread or tiger vs saltwater crocodile topic in carnivora.

Again, this is a discussion on predation thread and my doubts stay relevant since this is a tiger predation thread.

I have seen pics of tiger canines but not the weight or thickness.
Reply

Bitishannah Offline
Regular Member
***

@apex Titan

Thanks for clarification reg machli and canine strength of big cats
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

(07-22-2022, 06:45 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-22-2022, 06:16 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(07-22-2022, 09:24 AM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-21-2022, 07:18 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 08:51 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-19-2022, 05:55 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 10:47 PM)Bitishannah Wrote:
(07-18-2022, 06:05 PM)Apex Titan Wrote: Indo-chinese tiger with his adult gaur kill:





Tigress and cubs with a bull gaur kill:





Aren't gaur in Indochinese region larger than those of other parts of Asia?

Yes, Indochinese gaur, along with Indian gaur are the largest gaurs on earth.

Interestingly, although Indochinese tigers are smaller than Bengal tigers, they routinely hunt and kill both adult gaur and banteng:

"HKK has South‐East Asia's highest diversity of large ungulates which include gaur, banteng, sambar, and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis); together these species compose 90.3% of tiger diet."

Based on the average sex and age class weights, and the number of kills in each class, the average weight of adult gaur kills was 737.8 kg and they composed 83.7% of the biomass of gaur killed by tigers. Similarly, the mean adult banteng killed weighted 652.2 kg and adults composed 85.6% of biomass of this species killed by tigers. Adults composed 48.8% of gaur and 79.4% of banteng killed by male tigers; whereas, adult gaur and banteng composed 41.1% and 37.8% of female kills, respectively."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.6268


That's interesting. This must destroy the myths of tigers being deer specialist, having less strength, incapable of hunting large prey because they have long, less thick canines which could break easily unlike that of more stronger bodied,  stout canine lions.

I am not diverting topic. This topic is strictly tiger predation and in turn it helps us appreciate how these animals work, and also dispel misconceptions like these.

All studies on tiger feeding habits and predatory behaviour invariably show that tigers always go after the largest prey animals available. Wherever gaur, banteng and wild water buffalo are abundant, tigers routinely hunt them, and these large bovines are one of the tigers top favourite prey items.

Even the small Javan tigers weighing only 100 - 140 kg were known to routinely prey on adult Banteng, and also killed huge Banteng bulls weighing up to 825 kg! (Seidenstecker).

Gaur and especially wild water buffalo have been historically wiped out from many tiger reserves and regions, hence why tigers have to settle for deer and wild boar. Its all humans fault, as usual. 

Tigers are true big game specialists, their size, anatomy, musculature and weaponry is specifically built for hunting, subduing and killing large dangerous prey animals several times their own size and weight. This is why tigers, being solitary hunters of big game animals, have the longest and thickest canines of any extant terrestrial carnivore on earth.

This basically sums up the tiger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://archive.org/details/bigcatskingdomof0000brak

Karanth explains why it is more efficient and easier for tigers to hunt and kill large animals (Gaur, buffalo) instead of smaller animals (deer). In Nagarahole, where gaur are abundant, tigers routinely hunt and kill them, favouring gaur over the much smaller spotted deer. Whereas in other forests, where gaur are very scarce or extinct, tigers have to settle for hunting deer:


*This image is copyright of its original author


https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/T...frontcover
Do you believe that tiger has very strong but also long canines?

Because I heard that tigers have narrower canines compared to lions, and hence not good for hunting reptiles, especially crocs.

People often refer to the croc killed by machli which lost 3 canines fighting and killing a single croc. 

I know this is not a lion vs tiger and my intention isn't reg that topic but it still raises a query on the adaptation of tigers on reptiles when we see lions having no such problems.
Where exactly did you “hear” that?
I know you’ve seen the multitude of Canines showing Tigers to be longer, thicker and heavier. 
Troll somewhere else
You seem to be a hurt tiger fan. This is not trolling. It was a genuine doubt. I have already said this is not to be taken as tiger vs lion. Your response looks like that of a hurt fan rather than somebody who is interested in discussion.

You can search in carnivora for all of this. Specifically big cat vs croc interaction thread. It's too vast for me to quote. 

It was said that a tiger took many hours to kill a weakened mugger crocodile at the time of drought. You can check in big cat vs croc thread or tiger vs saltwater crocodile topic in carnivora.

Again, this is a discussion on predation thread and my doubts stay relevant since this is a tiger predation thread.
There’s nothing to be “hurt” about, you’re trolling per usual. If it’s a Tiger predation thread how is it that you’ve mentioned Lion v Tiger twice in as many posts?
I don’t need to search anywhere, we have the whole thread here and I’ve posted numerous canines which you’ve seen and commented on.
Reply

United Kingdom Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

@Apex Titan 

Very intereseting post you linked: https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/arti...ogin=false

Nevertheless, even I don't want to contest the tiger's superiority in terms of strength, fangs length and robustness, I just want to notice that in every aspect you consider, lion "closely followed" the tiger, or are just "sligthly less extrem". In short, the tiger doesn't crush the competition among big felines.


As concerns the length:

" The tiger has the largest canines of the analysed felids (Table 1; average 50.8 mm), followed closely by the lion (49.9 mm), the jaguar (41.6 mm), the leopard (34.4 mm), the clouded leopard (32.8 mm), and the snow leopard and puma (both 28.6 mm). The tiger has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than any other felid, save the lion ([i]P = 0.997), and the lion likewise. The jaguar has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than the leopard, clouded leopard, snow leopard, and puma. The leopard has significantly larger canines than the snow leopard (P[/i] = 0.018) and the puma (P < 0.000), but similar to those of the considerably smaller clouded leopard (P = 0.936). Although distinctly longer on average, the canines of the clouded leopard are insignificantly larger than those of the puma (P = 0.091) and the snow leopard (P = 0.299) and the averages in the two latter species are virtually identical (P > 0.999). "

50,8 mm - 49,9 mm = 0,81 mm ! Not perceived by the naked eyes ...

and P = 0,997 i.e. 3 thousandth. Wouah, lions are submerged ! When you are bitten by a lion or by a tiger you don't feel any difference at all.


As concerns the bending canines strengths:

Canine bending strengths in the simple model (eqns 4 and 5) are strongly size-dependent, and are highest in the tiger, followed by the lion and then the jaguar (Table 6). The leopard and puma have approximately the same bending strengths followed by the snow leopard, and the clouded leopard has the lowest bending strengths. However, the actual strength of the canines will depend on the loads exerted upon them by the jaw adductors. Incorporation of bite forces often changes the interspecific relationships significantly from conclusions drawn when using the simple model (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005). The average bite forces at the canine tips computed by Christiansen (2007) are 499.6 N for the puma (n = 10), 344.2 N for the clouded leopard (n = 12), 1198.6 N for the lion (n = 10), 879.5 N for the jaguar (n = 9), 558.6 N for the leopard (n = 8), 1234.3 N for the tiger (n = 14), and 363.0 N for the snow leopard (n = 9). "

Normalizing the bending strengths for estimated bite forces changes the pattern slightly. The tiger still appears to have the strongest canines of all species in bending about both planes (Fig. 6), but its canine strength is only consistently significantly higher than those of the clouded leopard and the leopard (Table 8). The tiger has stronger canines than the puma in bending about the lateromedial plane, whereas the two are often nonsignificantly different in bending about the anteroposterior plane. Only towards the apex does the bending strength of the tiger's canine significantly exceed that of the snow leopard in the lateromedial plane. The bending strengths in both planes are higher in the tiger than in the lion (Fig. 6), albeit nonsignificantly so (Table 8), and the more robust canines of the tiger are evidently somewhat compromised by its very high bite force. The bending strengths along the leopard canine are rather similar to those of the lion, snow leopard, and puma. Despite the bending strength of the seemingly massive teeth of the jaguar most often being above those of the other species, except the tiger (Fig. 6), its bending strengths in both planes are nonsignificantly different from those of the other pantherines and the puma (Table 8). Overall, only the clouded leopard stands out, having markedly weaker canines, and, with the exception of this species, the big cats have broadly comparable canine bending strengths compared to estimated bite forces. "

In conclusion:

" The tiger is the largest and most powerful extant felid. In warm parts of Asia, various deer are the most important prey (Schaller, 1967; Sunquist, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002), and, in Russia, it is wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) (Miquelle et al., 1996). Tigers mainly employ two killing techniques, largely based on prey size (Mazák, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Smaller prey, up to approximately one half of the tiger's body mass, are frequently killed with a powerful nape bite, often causing severe damage to the cervicals (Sunquist, 1981; Seidensticker & McGougal, 1993), and large prey are dispatched with a throat bite. The above appears congruent with the tiger's very high bite force (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005; Wroe et al., 2005; Christiansen, 2007) and very large and strong canines. Overall, the lion appears slightly less extreme in both respects, and this could be owing to it preying on the same size-classes of animals in groups, rather than individually. "

Sligthly doesn't mean appreciably, roughly and so on.
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
( This post was last modified: 07-22-2022, 08:01 PM by Pckts )

(07-22-2022, 07:23 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Apex Titan 

Very intereseting post you linked: https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/arti...ogin=false

Nevertheless, even I don't want to contest the tiger's superiority in terms of strength, fangs length and robustness, I just want to notice that in every aspect you consider, lion "closely followed" the tiger, or are just "sligthly less extrem". In short, the tiger doesn't crush the competition among big felines.


As concerns the length:

" The tiger has the largest canines of the analysed felids (Table 1; average 50.8 mm), followed closely by the lion (49.9 mm), the jaguar (41.6 mm), the leopard (34.4 mm), the clouded leopard (32.8 mm), and the snow leopard and puma (both 28.6 mm). The tiger has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than any other felid, save the lion ([i]P = 0.997), and the lion likewise. The jaguar has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than the leopard, clouded leopard, snow leopard, and puma. The leopard has significantly larger canines than the snow leopard (P[/i] = 0.018) and the puma (P < 0.000), but similar to those of the considerably smaller clouded leopard (P = 0.936). Although distinctly longer on average, the canines of the clouded leopard are insignificantly larger than those of the puma (P = 0.091) and the snow leopard (P = 0.299) and the averages in the two latter species are virtually identical (P > 0.999). "

50,8 mm - 49,9 mm = 0,81 mm ! Not perceived by the naked eyes ...

and P = 0,997 i.e. 3 thousandth. Wouah, lions are submerged ! When you are bitten by a lion or by a tiger you don't feel any difference at all.


As concerns the bending canines strengths:

Canine bending strengths in the simple model (eqns 4 and 5) are strongly size-dependent, and are highest in the tiger, followed by the lion and then the jaguar (Table 6). The leopard and puma have approximately the same bending strengths followed by the snow leopard, and the clouded leopard has the lowest bending strengths. However, the actual strength of the canines will depend on the loads exerted upon them by the jaw adductors. Incorporation of bite forces often changes the interspecific relationships significantly from conclusions drawn when using the simple model (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005). The average bite forces at the canine tips computed by Christiansen (2007) are 499.6 N for the puma (n = 10), 344.2 N for the clouded leopard (n = 12), 1198.6 N for the lion (n = 10), 879.5 N for the jaguar (n = 9), 558.6 N for the leopard (n = 8), 1234.3 N for the tiger (n = 14), and 363.0 N for the snow leopard (n = 9). "

Normalizing the bending strengths for estimated bite forces changes the pattern slightly. The tiger still appears to have the strongest canines of all species in bending about both planes (Fig. 6), but its canine strength is only consistently significantly higher than those of the clouded leopard and the leopard (Table 8). The tiger has stronger canines than the puma in bending about the lateromedial plane, whereas the two are often nonsignificantly different in bending about the anteroposterior plane. Only towards the apex does the bending strength of the tiger's canine significantly exceed that of the snow leopard in the lateromedial plane. The bending strengths in both planes are higher in the tiger than in the lion (Fig. 6), albeit nonsignificantly so (Table 8), and the more robust canines of the tiger are evidently somewhat compromised by its very high bite force. The bending strengths along the leopard canine are rather similar to those of the lion, snow leopard, and puma. Despite the bending strength of the seemingly massive teeth of the jaguar most often being above those of the other species, except the tiger (Fig. 6), its bending strengths in both planes are nonsignificantly different from those of the other pantherines and the puma (Table 8). Overall, only the clouded leopard stands out, having markedly weaker canines, and, with the exception of this species, the big cats have broadly comparable canine bending strengths compared to estimated bite forces. "

In conclusion:

" The tiger is the largest and most powerful extant felid. In warm parts of Asia, various deer are the most important prey (Schaller, 1967; Sunquist, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002), and, in Russia, it is wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) (Miquelle et al., 1996). Tigers mainly employ two killing techniques, largely based on prey size (Mazák, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Smaller prey, up to approximately one half of the tiger's body mass, are frequently killed with a powerful nape bite, often causing severe damage to the cervicals (Sunquist, 1981; Seidensticker & McGougal, 1993), and large prey are dispatched with a throat bite. The above appears congruent with the tiger's very high bite force (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005; Wroe et al., 2005; Christiansen, 2007) and very large and strong canines. Overall, the lion appears slightly less extreme in both respects, and this could be owing to it preying on the same size-classes of animals in groups, rather than individually. "

Sligthly doesn't mean appreciably, roughly and so on.
Generally speaking although the differences are slight to the naked eye they are noticeable. The same can be said about skulls in general, there are subtle differences that anyone with some knowledge on the topic can see but to the laymen they’ll not be able notice. When it comes to canines, Tigers will have a thicker root than lions, Lions taper off when they get towards the top of the root. The purpose of this is unknown but my guess would have to do with a reinforcement to the longer canine.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Lion (left) Pantanal jag (middle) tiger (right)
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

United Kingdom Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

@Pckts : yes, true ! I remember now that the roots of the tiger's fang were wider.

Yes, I remember now that were huge discussions several years ago (2014-2016).
Reply

Apex Titan Offline
Regular Member
***

(07-22-2022, 07:23 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Apex Titan 

Very intereseting post you linked: https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/arti...ogin=false

Nevertheless, even I don't want to contest the tiger's superiority in terms of strength, fangs length and robustness, I just want to notice that in every aspect you consider, lion "closely followed" the tiger, or are just "sligthly less extrem". In short, the tiger doesn't crush the competition among big felines.


As concerns the length:

" The tiger has the largest canines of the analysed felids (Table 1; average 50.8 mm), followed closely by the lion (49.9 mm), the jaguar (41.6 mm), the leopard (34.4 mm), the clouded leopard (32.8 mm), and the snow leopard and puma (both 28.6 mm). The tiger has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than any other felid, save the lion ([i]P = 0.997), and the lion likewise. The jaguar has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than the leopard, clouded leopard, snow leopard, and puma. The leopard has significantly larger canines than the snow leopard (P[/i] = 0.018) and the puma (P < 0.000), but similar to those of the considerably smaller clouded leopard (P = 0.936). Although distinctly longer on average, the canines of the clouded leopard are insignificantly larger than those of the puma (P = 0.091) and the snow leopard (P = 0.299) and the averages in the two latter species are virtually identical (P > 0.999). "

50,8 mm - 49,9 mm = 0,81 mm ! Not perceived by the naked eyes ...

and P = 0,997 i.e. 3 thousandth. Wouah, lions are submerged ! When you are bitten by a lion or by a tiger you don't feel any difference at all.


As concerns the bending canines strengths:

Canine bending strengths in the simple model (eqns 4 and 5) are strongly size-dependent, and are highest in the tiger, followed by the lion and then the jaguar (Table 6). The leopard and puma have approximately the same bending strengths followed by the snow leopard, and the clouded leopard has the lowest bending strengths. However, the actual strength of the canines will depend on the loads exerted upon them by the jaw adductors. Incorporation of bite forces often changes the interspecific relationships significantly from conclusions drawn when using the simple model (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005). The average bite forces at the canine tips computed by Christiansen (2007) are 499.6 N for the puma (n = 10), 344.2 N for the clouded leopard (n = 12), 1198.6 N for the lion (n = 10), 879.5 N for the jaguar (n = 9), 558.6 N for the leopard (n = 8), 1234.3 N for the tiger (n = 14), and 363.0 N for the snow leopard (n = 9). "

Normalizing the bending strengths for estimated bite forces changes the pattern slightly. The tiger still appears to have the strongest canines of all species in bending about both planes (Fig. 6), but its canine strength is only consistently significantly higher than those of the clouded leopard and the leopard (Table 8). The tiger has stronger canines than the puma in bending about the lateromedial plane, whereas the two are often nonsignificantly different in bending about the anteroposterior plane. Only towards the apex does the bending strength of the tiger's canine significantly exceed that of the snow leopard in the lateromedial plane. The bending strengths in both planes are higher in the tiger than in the lion (Fig. 6), albeit nonsignificantly so (Table 8), and the more robust canines of the tiger are evidently somewhat compromised by its very high bite force. The bending strengths along the leopard canine are rather similar to those of the lion, snow leopard, and puma. Despite the bending strength of the seemingly massive teeth of the jaguar most often being above those of the other species, except the tiger (Fig. 6), its bending strengths in both planes are nonsignificantly different from those of the other pantherines and the puma (Table 8). Overall, only the clouded leopard stands out, having markedly weaker canines, and, with the exception of this species, the big cats have broadly comparable canine bending strengths compared to estimated bite forces. "

In conclusion:

" The tiger is the largest and most powerful extant felid. In warm parts of Asia, various deer are the most important prey (Schaller, 1967; Sunquist, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002), and, in Russia, it is wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) (Miquelle et al., 1996). Tigers mainly employ two killing techniques, largely based on prey size (Mazák, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Smaller prey, up to approximately one half of the tiger's body mass, are frequently killed with a powerful nape bite, often causing severe damage to the cervicals (Sunquist, 1981; Seidensticker & McGougal, 1993), and large prey are dispatched with a throat bite. The above appears congruent with the tiger's very high bite force (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005; Wroe et al., 2005; Christiansen, 2007) and very large and strong canines. Overall, the lion appears slightly less extreme in both respects, and this could be owing to it preying on the same size-classes of animals in groups, rather than individually. "

Sligthly doesn't mean appreciably, roughly and so on.

Yes, the differences are usually slight, but are noticeable. Some tigers have ridiculously over-sized canines.

Here's a young male Amur tiger around 3 years old with huge canines:


*This image is copyright of its original author



This tiger (or tigress) has the biggest canines I've ever seen on any extant terrestrial carnivore: I've seen other tigers with equally as large fangs though.


*This image is copyright of its original author


I've also noticed that lions canines are straight from both sides, while the tigers canines are slightly curved from one side. I don't know the reason for this.
2 users Like Apex Titan's post
Reply

United Kingdom Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

@Apex Titan :

Yes very impressive photos. About the photo of the white tiger (or tigress), what surprises me the most is the difference between the upper fangs, seemingly longer, and the lower fangs. I believed that the length differences were minimal, or at least less significant.
Reply

LonePredator Offline
Regular Member
***

(07-26-2022, 10:53 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-22-2022, 07:23 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Apex Titan 

Very intereseting post you linked: https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/arti...ogin=false

Nevertheless, even I don't want to contest the tiger's superiority in terms of strength, fangs length and robustness, I just want to notice that in every aspect you consider, lion "closely followed" the tiger, or are just "sligthly less extrem". In short, the tiger doesn't crush the competition among big felines.


As concerns the length:

" The tiger has the largest canines of the analysed felids (Table 1; average 50.8 mm), followed closely by the lion (49.9 mm), the jaguar (41.6 mm), the leopard (34.4 mm), the clouded leopard (32.8 mm), and the snow leopard and puma (both 28.6 mm). The tiger has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than any other felid, save the lion ([i]P = 0.997), and the lion likewise. The jaguar has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than the leopard, clouded leopard, snow leopard, and puma. The leopard has significantly larger canines than the snow leopard (P[/i] = 0.018) and the puma (P < 0.000), but similar to those of the considerably smaller clouded leopard (P = 0.936). Although distinctly longer on average, the canines of the clouded leopard are insignificantly larger than those of the puma (P = 0.091) and the snow leopard (P = 0.299) and the averages in the two latter species are virtually identical (P > 0.999). "

50,8 mm - 49,9 mm = 0,81 mm ! Not perceived by the naked eyes ...

and P = 0,997 i.e. 3 thousandth. Wouah, lions are submerged ! When you are bitten by a lion or by a tiger you don't feel any difference at all.


As concerns the bending canines strengths:

Canine bending strengths in the simple model (eqns 4 and 5) are strongly size-dependent, and are highest in the tiger, followed by the lion and then the jaguar (Table 6). The leopard and puma have approximately the same bending strengths followed by the snow leopard, and the clouded leopard has the lowest bending strengths. However, the actual strength of the canines will depend on the loads exerted upon them by the jaw adductors. Incorporation of bite forces often changes the interspecific relationships significantly from conclusions drawn when using the simple model (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005). The average bite forces at the canine tips computed by Christiansen (2007) are 499.6 N for the puma (n = 10), 344.2 N for the clouded leopard (n = 12), 1198.6 N for the lion (n = 10), 879.5 N for the jaguar (n = 9), 558.6 N for the leopard (n = 8), 1234.3 N for the tiger (n = 14), and 363.0 N for the snow leopard (n = 9). "

Normalizing the bending strengths for estimated bite forces changes the pattern slightly. The tiger still appears to have the strongest canines of all species in bending about both planes (Fig. 6), but its canine strength is only consistently significantly higher than those of the clouded leopard and the leopard (Table 8). The tiger has stronger canines than the puma in bending about the lateromedial plane, whereas the two are often nonsignificantly different in bending about the anteroposterior plane. Only towards the apex does the bending strength of the tiger's canine significantly exceed that of the snow leopard in the lateromedial plane. The bending strengths in both planes are higher in the tiger than in the lion (Fig. 6), albeit nonsignificantly so (Table 8), and the more robust canines of the tiger are evidently somewhat compromised by its very high bite force. The bending strengths along the leopard canine are rather similar to those of the lion, snow leopard, and puma. Despite the bending strength of the seemingly massive teeth of the jaguar most often being above those of the other species, except the tiger (Fig. 6), its bending strengths in both planes are nonsignificantly different from those of the other pantherines and the puma (Table 8). Overall, only the clouded leopard stands out, having markedly weaker canines, and, with the exception of this species, the big cats have broadly comparable canine bending strengths compared to estimated bite forces. "

In conclusion:

" The tiger is the largest and most powerful extant felid. In warm parts of Asia, various deer are the most important prey (Schaller, 1967; Sunquist, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002), and, in Russia, it is wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) (Miquelle et al., 1996). Tigers mainly employ two killing techniques, largely based on prey size (Mazák, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Smaller prey, up to approximately one half of the tiger's body mass, are frequently killed with a powerful nape bite, often causing severe damage to the cervicals (Sunquist, 1981; Seidensticker & McGougal, 1993), and large prey are dispatched with a throat bite. The above appears congruent with the tiger's very high bite force (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005; Wroe et al., 2005; Christiansen, 2007) and very large and strong canines. Overall, the lion appears slightly less extreme in both respects, and this could be owing to it preying on the same size-classes of animals in groups, rather than individually. "

Sligthly doesn't mean appreciably, roughly and so on.

Yes, the differences are usually slight, but are noticeable. Some tigers have ridiculously over-sized canines.

Here's a young male Amur tiger around 3 years old with huge canines:


*This image is copyright of its original author



This tiger (or tigress) has the biggest canines I've ever seen on any extant terrestrial carnivore: I've seen other tigers with equally as large fangs though.


*This image is copyright of its original author


I've also noticed that lions canines are straight from both sides, while the tigers canines are slightly curved from one side. I don't know the reason for this.

Seems like a female. I’ve noticed that male canines tend to be ‘bulkier’ as male canines are thick and have a wider circumference.
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
( This post was last modified: 07-28-2022, 12:09 AM by Pckts )

A different angle



1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

Apex Titan Offline
Regular Member
***

(07-27-2022, 07:38 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(07-26-2022, 10:53 PM)Apex Titan Wrote:
(07-22-2022, 07:23 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Apex Titan 

Very intereseting post you linked: https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/arti...ogin=false

Nevertheless, even I don't want to contest the tiger's superiority in terms of strength, fangs length and robustness, I just want to notice that in every aspect you consider, lion "closely followed" the tiger, or are just "sligthly less extrem". In short, the tiger doesn't crush the competition among big felines.


As concerns the length:

" The tiger has the largest canines of the analysed felids (Table 1; average 50.8 mm), followed closely by the lion (49.9 mm), the jaguar (41.6 mm), the leopard (34.4 mm), the clouded leopard (32.8 mm), and the snow leopard and puma (both 28.6 mm). The tiger has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than any other felid, save the lion ([i]P = 0.997), and the lion likewise. The jaguar has far larger (P < 0.001) canines than the leopard, clouded leopard, snow leopard, and puma. The leopard has significantly larger canines than the snow leopard (P[/i] = 0.018) and the puma (P < 0.000), but similar to those of the considerably smaller clouded leopard (P = 0.936). Although distinctly longer on average, the canines of the clouded leopard are insignificantly larger than those of the puma (P = 0.091) and the snow leopard (P = 0.299) and the averages in the two latter species are virtually identical (P > 0.999). "

50,8 mm - 49,9 mm = 0,81 mm ! Not perceived by the naked eyes ...

and P = 0,997 i.e. 3 thousandth. Wouah, lions are submerged ! When you are bitten by a lion or by a tiger you don't feel any difference at all.


As concerns the bending canines strengths:

Canine bending strengths in the simple model (eqns 4 and 5) are strongly size-dependent, and are highest in the tiger, followed by the lion and then the jaguar (Table 6). The leopard and puma have approximately the same bending strengths followed by the snow leopard, and the clouded leopard has the lowest bending strengths. However, the actual strength of the canines will depend on the loads exerted upon them by the jaw adductors. Incorporation of bite forces often changes the interspecific relationships significantly from conclusions drawn when using the simple model (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005). The average bite forces at the canine tips computed by Christiansen (2007) are 499.6 N for the puma (n = 10), 344.2 N for the clouded leopard (n = 12), 1198.6 N for the lion (n = 10), 879.5 N for the jaguar (n = 9), 558.6 N for the leopard (n = 8), 1234.3 N for the tiger (n = 14), and 363.0 N for the snow leopard (n = 9). "

Normalizing the bending strengths for estimated bite forces changes the pattern slightly. The tiger still appears to have the strongest canines of all species in bending about both planes (Fig. 6), but its canine strength is only consistently significantly higher than those of the clouded leopard and the leopard (Table 8). The tiger has stronger canines than the puma in bending about the lateromedial plane, whereas the two are often nonsignificantly different in bending about the anteroposterior plane. Only towards the apex does the bending strength of the tiger's canine significantly exceed that of the snow leopard in the lateromedial plane. The bending strengths in both planes are higher in the tiger than in the lion (Fig. 6), albeit nonsignificantly so (Table 8), and the more robust canines of the tiger are evidently somewhat compromised by its very high bite force. The bending strengths along the leopard canine are rather similar to those of the lion, snow leopard, and puma. Despite the bending strength of the seemingly massive teeth of the jaguar most often being above those of the other species, except the tiger (Fig. 6), its bending strengths in both planes are nonsignificantly different from those of the other pantherines and the puma (Table 8). Overall, only the clouded leopard stands out, having markedly weaker canines, and, with the exception of this species, the big cats have broadly comparable canine bending strengths compared to estimated bite forces. "

In conclusion:

" The tiger is the largest and most powerful extant felid. In warm parts of Asia, various deer are the most important prey (Schaller, 1967; Sunquist, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002), and, in Russia, it is wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) (Miquelle et al., 1996). Tigers mainly employ two killing techniques, largely based on prey size (Mazák, 1981; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Smaller prey, up to approximately one half of the tiger's body mass, are frequently killed with a powerful nape bite, often causing severe damage to the cervicals (Sunquist, 1981; Seidensticker & McGougal, 1993), and large prey are dispatched with a throat bite. The above appears congruent with the tiger's very high bite force (Christiansen & Adolfssen, 2005; Wroe et al., 2005; Christiansen, 2007) and very large and strong canines. Overall, the lion appears slightly less extreme in both respects, and this could be owing to it preying on the same size-classes of animals in groups, rather than individually. "

Sligthly doesn't mean appreciably, roughly and so on.

Yes, the differences are usually slight, but are noticeable. Some tigers have ridiculously over-sized canines.

Here's a young male Amur tiger around 3 years old with huge canines:


*This image is copyright of its original author



This tiger (or tigress) has the biggest canines I've ever seen on any extant terrestrial carnivore: I've seen other tigers with equally as large fangs though.


*This image is copyright of its original author


I've also noticed that lions canines are straight from both sides, while the tigers canines are slightly curved from one side. I don't know the reason for this.

Seems like a female. I’ve noticed that male canines tend to be ‘bulkier’ as male canines are thick and have a wider circumference.

Yeah, thats what I was thinking as well. It's likely a tigress.
Reply

Apex Titan Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 08-05-2022, 05:57 PM by Apex Titan )

On March 15, 2022, a young male Amur tiger named Wandashan No.1 killed an adult male wild boar weighing more than 150 kgs:








*This image is copyright of its original author
4 users Like Apex Titan's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
parvez, 13 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB