Remove this ad

#181 [url]

Jan 30 14 12:27 PM

New result

Check the image:

image

 

I made a correction in the position of my arm; after all, the arm of the man in the picture is not straight in upper view, but slightly twisted. So, the results of my arm (photoshoped one) will measure 5.3 cm in the wrist and 8.4 in the middle arm, slightly less than the original values.

 

The results are:

* By the wrist: 5.3+5.3+2.7+1.3 = 14.6*2 = 29.2 cm (or slightly less).

* By the middle arm: 8.4+4.2+2.1 = 14.7*2 = 29.4 cm (or slightly more).

 

This rouge result, corrected by the arm angle, suggests that the zygomatic wide of the giant tiger skull is more than 29 cm, probably up to 30 cm. I will use 29.3 cm for the calculations in this moment as is the average of the two values obtained.

 

However check that the bars in the image show that the skull was slightly larger than the end of bars in the case of the middle arm and smaller in the case of the wrist, but from my point of view, that of the middle arm is more reliable, as the position of the wrist changes too much the value to estimate the correct size while the variation of the middle arm is minimum as is more circular than the wrist area.

 

Using modern tiger skulls, here are the calculated greatest skull lengths using the ratio of GSL/ZW:

 

Subspecies:                 Ratio                  GSL          Sample

P. t. amoyensis:                     1.51                             442 mm         4

P. t. corbetti:                          1.46                             428 mm         3

P. t. sondaica:                        1.43                             419 mm         13

P. t. altaica:                           1.44                             422 mm         13

P. t. tigris:                              1.41                            413 mm         18

Average:                              1.45                             425 mm         5 (all the ratios)

 

The result show that overall the populations, the estimated GSL should be of c.425 mm, which his larger than any modern tiger skull, however as we know that the most close relative of the Wanhsien tiger is the South China tiger (Panthera tigris amoyensis), then the most accurate comparison should be the figure of 442 mm.

 

The less reliable is that of the Bengal tiger, as this is the most modern tiger subspecies to evolve and by the same, the less related with the Pleistocene subspecies.

 

I tried to scale the arm equally, but my arm is wider in the middle and narrower in the wrist. So, this can affect the measurements, but I don’t know by how much.

 

This could be qualified as a silly intent, but at least, I am trying to found a reliable way to guess more or less the size of this skull. This is the best that I can do (for the moment), with such little material. Hope this helps a little.

 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#182 [url]

Jan 30 14 12:39 PM

Just for the sake of comparison, these are the values if we use the figure of 29.4 cm from the middle arm bars, which are the most reliable from my point o view:

 

Using modern tiger skulls, here are the calculated greatest skull lengths using the ratio of GSL/ZW:

 

Subspecies:                 Ratio                  GSL          Sample

P. t. amoyensis:                    1.51                444 mm         4

P. t. corbetti:                         1.46                429 mm         3

P. t. sondaica:                       1.43                420 mm         13

P. t. altaica:                          1.44                423 mm         13

P. t. tigris:                             1.41                414.5 mm      18

Average:                              1.45                426 mm         5 (all the ratios)

 

The difference is not much dramatic. The result shows that overall the populations, the estimated GSL should be of c.426 mm, while that of the South China tiger (Panthera tigris amoyensis), present a figure of 444 mm.

 

This figures are comparable with the larger specimens of Eurasian cave “lions” (Panthera spelaea spelaea), but still smaller than the larger Cromerian “lions” (Panthera spelaea fossilis).

 

However, and this is VERY important, this results are based in the size of my arm and the supposition that the size of the man in the picture have a similar size of arm than mine. However, the results may change if the comparison is made with larger or smaller arm measurements. I think that average values (from more arms) should be used, but still, the results will be very subjective.

 

This is as far as I can go with these calculations. My proposition is a skull with a GSL of c.442 cm and a ZW of c.293 mm.

 

Interestingly, this is about the same size than the estimated skull length for the large Ngandong tiger femur.

 

Greetings to all.

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#183 [url]

Jan 30 14 7:29 PM

This skull looks by far the most robust and broadest skull i've ever seen, but unfortunately we may never know its real measurement.

I just hope those zoos could preserve the bones of the deceased giant Amur specimens.

Quote    Reply   

#184 [url]

Jan 30 14 10:29 PM

In fact, I am 100% sure that the Chinese guy in the picture is smaller than me, in that case the skull size calculation that I proposed will be a clear underestimation.

 

Sadly, I don’t know which are the arm measurements of an average Chinese man, but at least I proposed a plausible method to estimate the skull size of that particular picture.

 

About the giant captive tigers, I think that it is possible to the Zoos to keep the bones of them tigers, with the proper register of course, after all tigers are a protected species and any person or institution needs a proper premise to keep real tiger bones.

 

Maybe we should write to them, just like KingT do, and suggest them to keep the bones and make them available for future studies, just like the case of the Prague Zoo and Dr Mazák.

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#185 [url]

Jan 30 14 11:10 PM

The texture of the giant skull looks pretty similar to that of the giant mandible, although they are not the same specimen, but they look like pretty closely related to each other.

It could belong a same species of the similar timeline, so i guess the Wanhsien tigers from certain period were larger, but we just need the official scientific record to prove our hypothesis.

Quote    Reply   

#186 [url]

Jan 30 14 11:15 PM

Im not sure whether zoo prague has any tiger bones...I asked them what they do with carcasses and they told me that according to lawthese things must be destroyed. Perhaps they have some from the past...but Im not sure. Or perhaps national museum has something but I doubt that

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#187 [url]

Jan 30 14 11:22 PM

I think almost no person in Europe would practise the tiger medicine, while the bone of the giant specimens to be destroyed is absolutely a waste.

Imagine the specimen with 50cm head still has its bone remains available, it would indeed be boggling to see a modern pantherine cat to rival the largest prehistoric pantherine cat.

Quote    Reply   

#188 [url]

Jan 30 14 11:33 PM

There is quite strong asian community in europe... Tiger is just one of many species of Prague zoo...do you think that they store bones of all huge specimen of their animals? They must solve different problems than keeping tiger bones for the purpose of measurements. .. I will ask them...

Quote    Reply   

#190 [url]

Jan 30 14 11:45 PM

Yes but tiger trade is alive even incentral europe. Couple ofmonths ago they found skeletons of 2 tigers at prague airport. They wanted to send these bones tto vietnam. Sad...I think I knew these tigers. :-(

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#191 [url]

Jan 31 14 12:31 AM

Thanks for the information Amnon242. In fact, reading Mazák (1967) again, I found that the large skull of the huge male "Amur" from the Prague zoo was in Mazák private collection, not in the Prague Zoo.

I think that Amnon242 is right, Zoos need to store just what they need, and like I mention before, the law is very strong about the conservation of tiger specimens (bones and skins).

Maybe, just maybe, if a Museums or a Private collectors (with aaaaaaaall the proper permissions obviously, and a lot of money) ask for the skull, they could conserve it. But I think that it is very hard to conserve these skulls or any bone. People like Dr. Bhagavan Antle (the guy that breed ligers in USA) conserve all his skulls, I have saw one of a liger in Tv, but I don't know if the zoo were Baikal lives now will be willing to keep its bones.

One example of conservation of bones and data of its specimens is the "Zoological Museum of Copenhagen", which conserve a large archive of specimens (it is the main database of Dr Christiansen). Other example is the enterprise "Bone Clones", which ask for real bones, cast them and latter conserve the specimen with its real size. This will be the best way to conserve those giant tiger bones, to keep a mold and reproduce it as many times as needed.


Quote    Reply   

#194 [url]

Jan 31 14 1:49 AM

Here is my table with all the captive specimens that I was able to found:

image

 

Please take in count that the Head-body length of the skeleton is just from the frontal part of the skull to the last lumbar vertebrae, so it don’t include the sacral and the final part of the hip bone, that is why there is so much difference between the head-body length and that in the flesh.

 

Well, the ratio of skull length and head length of the two large males of the Prague zoo is, measurements in millimeters:

 

Specimen     GSL                CBL                Head              Ratio H-GSL             Ratio H-CBL

No. 11             371                 322.5              450                 1.21                            1.40

No. 102          377                 331.2              420                 1.11                            1.27

Average:        374                 326.8              435                 1.16                            1.34

 

Results:

No. 143          c.413              357.1              500                 No. 11

                     c.450              393.7              500                 No. 102

Average:      c.431.5          375.4              500                

 

 

The values are to dispersed to get an accurate value, but using these two males, it seems that the skull of the large male “Amur” from the Duisburg Zoo is of c.431.5 mm, which is very large for a tiger, although it can be as small as 420 mm (which is not small at all, compared with other skulls) or as large as 450 mm (comparable with the fossil records).

 

Seizing the opportunity, I am going to estimate the GSL of the three males from the Copenhagen Museum, using the ratio of 1.12 obtained from 11 male tigers:

 

Specimen     CBL                GSL   

CN5698         350.9              393.0

CN6049         337.8              378.3

CN5697         334.2              374.3

 

It seems that the largest skull (CN5698) match perfectly with the Amur skull specimen (BC-008) from “Bone Clones”, check this out:

Size: 15 1/2" Long, 10" Wide, 7" High

            393.7 mm      254 mm    178 mm

Source: http://www.boneclones.com/BC-008.htm

image

 

This is a transparent image that I have made of this skull for comparison purposes:

image

 

I guess that this is the same specimen from the Copenhagen museum, and this is good because there is a cast of this specimen already in the market.

 

Last Edited By: GuateGojira Jan 31 14 2:06 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#195 [url]

Jan 31 14 2:17 AM

Personally, i am leaning towards the 45cm estimation for "Amur", since his canine teeth are too big, if his skull is not large enough to host it, then it would probably look like a clouded leopard skull.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#196 [url]

Jan 31 14 2:29 AM

Also, "Amur" from the Duisburg zoo didn't have the longest head+body length, but he has the biggest head by far.

As tigerluver pointed out before, due the different genome combination, he is a clone of the Wanhsien tiger, just like Baikal is a clone of the Ngandong tiger.

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 31 14 2:34 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   

#197 [url]

Jan 31 14 6:11 AM

Record skulls 1 – Amur tiger

Here is my image comparison with the largest Amur tiger skulls recorded:

image

 

Check the difference between the wild specimens and the captive of Bone Clones. Wild ones had more massive zygomatic arches, wider canines and a larger sagital crest, while the captive one has a longer occiput and relative smaller muzzle.

 

As the largest skull from Mazák doesn't have height, I used exactly the same proportions from his document of 1981, by the way, the sagital crest height (50 mm) match perfectly with that of the comparison.

 

Enjoy it. smiley: happy

 

Quote    Reply   

#198 [url]

Jan 31 14 6:35 AM

GrizzlyClaws wrote:
Personally, i am leaning towards the 45cm estimation for "Amur", since his canine teeth are too big, if his skull is not large enough to host it, then it would probably look like a clouded leopard skull.

About this record canine, I used the largest skull of Mazák and I enlarged the skull in order to get the canine length of 90 mm. Here is the result:

image

 

The resulted skull measure about 43 cm, which is about the same than the average that I get previously (431.5 mm). So I think that the minimum skull length to have a canine length of 9 cm must be a skull of no less than 43 cm in greatest length.

 



Quote    Reply   

#199 [url]

Jan 31 14 7:08 AM

GrizzlyClaws wrote:
Also, "Amur" from the Duisburg zoo didn't have the longest head+body length, but he has the biggest head by far.

As tigerluver pointed out before, due the different genome combination, he is a clone of the Wanhsien tiger, just like Baikal is a clone of the Ngandong tiger.

In the same way, the largest tiger in body size (Amur from Prague) has the smallest skull (371 mm). I think that it is only body variation caused by an unknown mix of genes.

 

I don’t think that Baikal is the same case, and it is too risky to establish conclusion that are based only in assumptions.

 

I think that Peter conclusions fit better here, that there are two groups of captive Amur tigers, those with large head and relative short body and those with smaller heads and larger bodies. Baikal and the two Amur (Prague and Duisburg) are exceptional cases, with extreme bodies or heads, all the other captive specimens fit very well in the normal grow of the Amur tigers.

 


Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#200 [url]

Jan 31 14 7:10 AM

His canine teeth are 9cm from the gum line, so it must be longer than 9cm from the skull, which means "Amur" from the Duisburg zoo has a skull over 43cm.

Some tigers have bigger head, but smaller skull, this means they have really meaty head.

But "Amur" from the Duisburg zoo has the massive 9cm canine teeth from the gum line, such massive canine teeth must be hosted by the huge skull structure. So this means his head is not meaty at all.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help