Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-22-2014, 11:17 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Definitely, weight and body size are probably not related with canine length. In that case, a light but large bodied tiger with a big head will have large canines.

The longest canine for a wild Amur tiger, that I remember is that of the skull of 40 cm of Baikov (1925), which have an upper canine length of 8 cm, which would mean a crown height (up to the gum line) of c.7.5 cm, the same than the Indian tiger Madla. This would mean that both Amur and Bengal tigers have a maximum canine length of up to 7.5 cm to the gum line in the wild. The largest skull measured by Mazák (383 mm) had a canine length of 7.45 cm (Mazák, 1981 - 1983), which will produce a crown height of c.7 cm, slightly smaller than the previous records.
 
Wild lions, based in actual measurements, don't surpass the 6 cm in upper canine length. So those exceptional cases over 6 cm came only from captive specimens.


 

 

Here is the canine measurement for a 45cm Panthera spelaea skull, it should be around 6cm from the gumline, so basically the same size as the modern African lion.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply