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

[GrizzlyClaws]

Was that longest Sumantran canines measured from the gumline?

I assume the canines measurement for those skulls are not from the gumline, while the actual gumline measurement should be somewhat shorter. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-22-2014, 09:21 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Was that longest Sumantran canines measured from the gumline?

I assume the canines measurement for those skulls are not from the gumline, while the actual gumline measurement should be shorter.

 

Good point GrizzlyClaws, I also think that those canine measurements are not from the gum line, after all, peter measured skulls not live animals. The point is how much of that tooth is for the crown and how much is from the gum.


  Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-22-2014, 09:25 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:

(04-22-2014, 09:21 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Was that longest Sumantran canines measured from the gumline?

I assume the canines measurement for those skulls are not from the gumline, while the actual gumline measurement should be shorter.


 

Good point GrizzlyClaws, I also think that those canine measurements are not from the gum line, after all, peter measured skulls not live animals. The point is how much of that tooth is for the crown and how much is from the gum.


 

 

If the 70mm+ measurement was from the skull, then it should be around 65mm for the gumline.

So it makes sense that someone got a 13cm Sumantran canine in his/her private collection.

Maybe the gumline measurement is about 50% of the entire canine length, while the crown measurement is a bit more than 50%???
  Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-22-2014, 03:37 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Some Sumatran tigers can also have massive canines, this one from the private collection is 13cm in the total length.

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

Those 13 cm of the canines are the entire canine length. In this case, the problem is more deep as we most know how much of the teeth length is crown, how much is gum line and how much is at the skull.
 
By the picture that you post, I think that 60% of the canine is at the skull, and 30-35% is for the crown. The gum line is very variable, but 15-10% seems reasonable for a healthy mouth, I think.
  Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-22-2014, 09:55 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:

(04-22-2014, 03:37 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Some Sumatran tigers can also have massive canines, this one from the private collection is 13cm in the total length.

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

Those 13 cm of the canines are the entire canine length. In this case, the problem is more deep as we most know how much of the teeth length is crown, how much is gum line and how much is at the skull.
 
By the picture that you post, I think that 60% of the canine is at the skull, and 30-35% is for the crown. The gum line is very variable, but 15-10% seems reasonable for a healthy mouth, I think.
 

 

Since the big cat canine is a bit curved, not exactly straight.

When "Amur" got his measurement from gumline in 90mm, then i cannot imagine it is only 10-15% of the entire canine length. Otherwise, the entire canine would be over 30cm; this is a Smilodon populator, not a tiger anymore.

We should find a way to understand how the big cat canine is structured to insert into the skull. Reply

[GuateGojira]

I think that I have not explained myself very clear. What I want to say was that from the entire canine, 60% was in the skull and 40% was for the crown. For this last percentage 5-10% would correspond to the gum line, so the canine length measured from the tip to the gum line would be between 30-35% of the canine itself. However, I think that I exaggerated a little and that the gum line will be no more than the 5% of the crown length, which suggest that from a canine, the 35% will correspond to the tooth length from the tip to the gum.

We need data for comparison, at the moment, I don't know of any specimen that have both type of measurements.

  Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-22-2014, 10:16 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: I think that I have not explained myself very clear. What I want to say was that from the entire canine, 60% was in the skull and 40% was for the crown. For this last percentage 5-10% would correspond to the gum line, so the canine length measured from the tip to the gum line would be between 30-35% of the canine itself. However, I think that I exaggerated a little and that the gum line will be no more than the 5% of the crown length, which suggest that from a canine, the 35% will correspond to the tooth length from the tip to the gum.

We need data for comparison, at the moment, I don't know of any specimen that have both type of measurements.

 

 

You are right Guate, since the big cat canine proportion might have different ratio based on the diffrent individual.

I posted a such weird question because i am getting pretty intrigued by the canine measurement of the Duisburg Zoo specimen, since Dr. Gewalt measured his canines during the diagnosis, so it is definitely from the gumline. Based on the normal ratio, the entire length of "Amur" canines should be no less than 8 inches, but i never saw a such monstrous canine in the private collection apart from the sabertooth one, even a 6 inches canine is pretty rare to find.

Maybe you are right, those montrous tigers have the canines comparable to that of the Homotherium, while their body remains were much destroyed after their death, so almost none of their body remains have been ended up in the private collection. Reply

[GuateGojira]

The measurement of 9 cm was definitely taken from the live animal, so it was from the tip to the gum line. As far I remember, the longest tiger skull is longer than the longest Homotherium skull, I could be wrong as I don't remember it very well, but if this is true, this would mean that Homotherimum had longer canines in relation with its GSL. However, the tiger is the only modern cat that have canines as long as those of this saber-tooth cat, at least in captivity.

About the private collections, I have observed that most of them not just don't keep the skulls of they animals, but also only buy the skull from Bone Clones (that of 39 cm) for presentation purposes. This is also the skull that most schools have.
 

 

  Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-22-2014, 10:41 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: The measurement of 9 cm was definitely taken from the live animal, so it was from the tip to the gum line. As far I remember, the longest tiger skull is longer than the longest Homotherium skull, I could be wrong as I don't remember it very well, but if this is true, this would mean that Homotherimum had longer canines in relation with its GSL. However, the tiger is the only modern cat that have canines as long as those of this saber-tooth cat, at least in captivity.

About the private collections, I have observed that most of them not just don't keep the skulls of they animals, but also only buy the skull from Bone Clones (that of 39 cm) for presentation purposes. This is also the skull that most schools have.
 

 

 

 

The replica from the bone clone doesn't get very impressive upper canines.

But now i tend to see that some captive Amur tigers might have developed the unprecedented canines size for the big cats, since no wild tiger ever approached that mark, nor any prehistoric big cat based on the fossils. When you check Panthera atrox and Panthera spelaea, none of them would get the Homotherium sized canines.

I think this could be the genetic mutation among some captive tigers. Reply

[GuateGojira]

That will be a good conclusion. No Panthera cat have longer canines, in the wild, than those of Homotherium, but in some extreme cases of tiger, they approach in length.

  Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-22-2014, 10:52 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: That will be a good conclusion. None Panthera cat have longer canines, in the wild, than those of Homotherium, but in some extream cases of tiger, they aproach in length.

 

 

Peter once mentioned that many 400 pounds male captive Amurs got over 70mm from gumline, that's already approaching the largest record for the wild Bengals. So the canine length of the captive Amurs are definitely not in the norm compared to their wild counterparts.

While the captive lions also got longer canines than usual, since the 6.7cm canines could already be unprecedented for any lion in the history. Reply

[GuateGojira]

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.


  Reply

[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.


 

 

The 40cm skull mentioned by Baikov seems to be similar to Madla in both skull and canines length, it should belong a dominant male of 240-260kg.

Maybe we can expert even larger skull during the old school days for the Amur tigers. Reply

[Pckts]

Great info, yet again.
This was my theory on Siberians exceptional Canine length.
Since their prey lives in extremely cold enviroments, they must have lots of thick, dense fur, fat, and muscle to keep them warm and not let heat escape their body. This probably means that amurs evolved a larger canine to make sure they can penitrate the denser fur of the prey they hunt. Reply

[GuateGojira]

This is also what I think. Amur tigers evolved from the Caspian tigers that traveled through Siberia up to the Far East. The principal prey of these original tigers was the wild boar, which in its habitat, reaches great sizes and is very strong. Caspian tigers evolved a huge sagital crest, very large canines and a relative short muzzle, which increased its bite strength. Then, the Amur tigers that invaded the Amur area found the same prey population but with other prey items that range from the red deer to the brown bear. In this case, Amur tigers kept those original adaptations and enlarge it, with even larger sagital crest, long but robust canines and a wider muzzle. Amur tigers are the top in the tiger evolution, separated from its original area (Caucasus) just about 200 years.

The only other tiger that follow this enlarge plan was the Bengal tiger, which invades India about 12,000 years ago, and found an even larger prey base, better territory and created a "big bang" in the Indian subcontinent, transforming it into its stronghold, despite the presence of the lion and the humans. The Bengal tiger developed the same body proportions of the large Amur tigers but they don't change its skull very much. Compared with the Amur-Caspian tigers, the Bengal ones have a very small sagital crest, slightly narrow muzzle and relative small dentition.

In this case, we can suggest that the prey in the northern areas, like the giant wild boar, have a much stronger skin than those of the southern areas, including the sambar and the gaur. In this case, the Amur tiger developed a much stronger bite and is possible that this help them in increasing its hunting success, which is over 50% in the Russian Far East (Sunquist, 2010).
  Reply