| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| This image of Rowland Ward shows how the big cat skulls are measured | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 2 2015, 06:42 AM (1,770 Views) | |
| Warsaw2014 | Oct 2 2015, 06:42 AM Post #1 |
|
Herbivore
  ![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)
|
This image of Rowland Ward shows how the big cat skulls are measured,but .... http://www.taxidermy4cash.com/rwlionskull.jpg http://home.scarlet.be/~ad041677/images/rowlandward.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Wor00CYm4U0/S_S-DNWIJQI/AAAAAAAAF9s/8ZcQmgm7GD8/s400/e00.jpg  I hope it's clear to everyone that this measurement is taken across the zygomatic arches. Frow WF GuateGojira wrote"This image of Rowland Ward shows how the big cat skulls are measured, showing that the silly claim of Warsaw that great cat skulls measurements are unreliable, is completely false.Check that mandibles had nothing to do in the measurement of the GSL. By the way, the largest tiger skull actually measured by Rowland Ward in person (not those "Owner's measurements"), in this form, is a male specimen from Cooch Behar that measured 384 mm x 260 mm (Rowland Ward, 1914; 7th edition). I don't know if more recent editions had larger tiger skulls" OK Here's what I said:post #607 AVA http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/3029/Body-size-of-the-Ngandong-tiger-Panthera-tigris-soloensis?page=31#.Vg6wc0pX_IU GuateGojira wrote:I will ask, how reliable is the Boone and Crockett Club in comparison with Rowland Wards Records of big game??? I read somewhere that the first ones have experts that verified the records in the field when is necessary. and SCI.IMHO "...RW and SCI measure the greatest length and width of the skull and add the two figures (RW method 17, SCI method 15), CIC uses the Boone & Crockett method which also scores the total of greatest length and width, however measurements are taken on the cranium without the lower jaw attached..." http://www.africahunting.com/content/2-measuring-large-african-predators-428/ http://www.boone-crockett.org/bgrecords/records_policies.asp?area=bgRecords http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/3029/Body-size-of-the-Ngandong-tiger-Panthera-tigris-soloensis?page=31#.Vg6wc0pX_IU Here's another post made by me: I have also said: #1066 "Both methods can slightly increase the greatest length ." http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/2274/ON-THE-EDGE-OF-EXTINCTION-PART-I-tigers?page=54#.Vg62JkpX_IU "Both* methods can slightly increase the greatest length ." *Greatest length of skull without lower (The Boone and Crockett Club method & CIC ) AND Greatest length of skull with lower (Rowland Ward 's &SCI) I aslo said that :#1065 http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/2274/ON-THE-EDGE-OF-EXTINCTION-PART-I-tigers?page=54#.Vg6rQUpX_IU "The scientific measurement of the skulls "to not include teeth" BUT Trophy Scoring Systems "include teeth" The scientific measurement of the skulls > The Boone and Crockett Club method & CIC >Rowland Ward 's &SCI Edited by Warsaw2014, Oct 3 2015, 03:12 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| WaveRiders_ | Oct 4 2015, 11:22 PM Post #2 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
|
Unless specifically stated or crystal clear from equivalent kind of undisputable evidence that the greatest length (or “length” as often/sometimes referred either in historical literature and modern one) of a skull has been taken from prosthion (anteriormost point of premaxilla) to inion (rearmost point of sagittal-occipital crest) NO skull length can be retained valid and scientifically acceptable. Furthermore, skull measurements have to be taken after a long enough period during which the skull, to be perfectly cleaned, becomes completely dry. Crystal clear from equivalent kind of undisputable evidence can be for instance when an author refers to have used exactly the same method adopted by another author who specifically states the skull length has been taken from prostion to inion (on a perfectly dried skull). The reality of facts is that the above kind of information in many cases of skull measurements reported by old historical literature and for all skull measurements reported by Rowland Ward (except those skulls specifically measured by other authors stating measurements have been taken from prosthion to inion) have NO scientific value. Skull measurements reported by the Boone & Crockett Club and CIC are more reliable and accurate then those from Rowland Ward and SCI because the length measurements are specified to be taken without the mandible attached to the skull. The Boone & Crockett Club is quite a serious hunting institution for a record to be credited. I do take and consider skull measurements reported in Rowland Ward’s Records as well as those reported from SCI for the purpose of info, but not for serious analyses. No modern scientists will ever perform skull studies, analyses and comparisons using Rowland Ward’s Records and SCI data as this is what would be completely “silly” and not only because Rowland Ward and SCI measurement system specifies taking the skull length between uprights with mandible attached, but for reliability and accuracy as well. Therefore all skull lengths of tigers, lions, bears, wolves, etc. reported in either historical and modern literature that do no clearly specifically state (or that it is crystal clear from equivalent evidence) the skull length has been taken between prosthion and inion cannot be compared to skull lengths for which this essential info (or crystal clear equivalent one) is provided. Early editions of Rowland Ward state skull length is the “Basal length from back to front” (late editions instead just the "length"). This terminology is incompatible to modern info. As I reminded in a previous post in this forum (post # 28 of “American Lion - Panthera leo atrox” thread) in the modern terminology the basal length is measured from the prosthion (as the condylobasal length or the greatest length of skull or some other skull dimensions) to the anterior most edge of the inner surface of the occipital condyles (foramen magnum), a point named basion. According to Rowland Ward “basal” is instead the length of the skull. Which length? During late XIX century and early XX century the length of the skull was, unless clearly specified otherwise, generally taken in the way described by Sterndale (1884) even if a large calliper as the one Mr. Rowland Ward appears to handle in the picture showing while he was taking the zygomathic length of a likely lion skull was used. Concerning Rowland Ward the only evidence suggesting the correct menthod would be Mr. Rowland Ward clearly pointing the front arm of the calliper at the exact prosthion position while he was taking the length measurement of the skull. I have never seen such a picture and the reason is the following excerpt from Sterndale (1884), which is evidence ot the general method used at that time unless clearly specified (or referred to equivalent info) that the prosthion-inion length was instead taken. From Sterndale (1884)  It is evident that the method of measurement used by Sterndale to measure the skull length of that tiger shot in Purneah by J. Shillingford, for which Sterndale provides a length of 15.25 inches (387.35 mm), has no scientific validity as, even assuming the mandible was not attached to the skull, the length has been taken with two squares one of which was evidently set at the lower border of the upper incisors and not from the prosthion (unless that skull had no upper incisors at all which was very much unlikely): regardless of how small the difference is it is not the prosthion-inion length. If the mandible was attached the length measured by Sterndale could have even been a more distant relative of the prosthion-inion length. From Rowland Ward ed. 1975  It is also evident that the method specified by Rowland Ward is not the prosthion-inion length and the length measured following its method (mandible attached and incisors included as a minimum in principle) can result in a significant distant relative of the prosthion-inion length. The picture shown by Warsaw of Mr. Rowland Ward taking a zygomathic width measurement over 100 years ago is clear evidence that Mr. Rowland Ward while he was alive measured skulls with the mandible attached (as clearly specified in late editions of his Record book) and no doubt his method was even less accurate (in terms of expressing the correct prosthion-inion length) then the one described by Sterndale (assuming Sterndale did never leave the mandible attached to the skull as I am inclined to believe, otherwise (in)accuracy was the same). Therefore unless specifically stated (or crystal clear from equivalent info) that a skull length has been taken from prosthion to inion all skull lengths provided by zoologists, naturalists, hunters, forest officers, Rowland Ward and any other kind of hunting institution database, etc. etc. for any animal, particularly the skull lengths reported in historical literature including either hunting literature and natural history (as proved by my example on that tiger skull measured by Sterndale) cannot be compared with skull lengths reported in literature (either historical and modern) for which the length has been clearly specified to be the prosthion-inion length (greatest length of skull in modern scientific terminology). This regardless from the accuracy and reliability of the measurement itself which is another matter then the method I am talking. A clear example is in my opinion a consideration one can make that just mentioning the supposed lion skull measuring 18 3/8 inches (466.7 mm) in length and 10 1/2 inches (266.7 mm) in zygomathic width of an animal shot in August 1968 in Eastern Transvaal by I. Mackenzie reported in the editions of Rowland Ward of the last 45 years being even just a little bit serious is completely non-sense. I am aware from my professional zoologist friends that the Mackenzie lion skull woke up the interest of the scientific community as being (obviously) absolutely incredible in size if the measurements were just at least closely accurate and reliable and the method used correct. However as far as for what I have been told by my friends nor they or any other authorities have apparently ever been able to verify the measurements of that skull as the skin of that lion was stuffed with its skull mounted inside (and Mr. Mackenzie was apparently not very keen to dismount the assembly). Another example of unreliability comes from how one can interpret measurements reported by modern scientists. The largest Amur tiger skull reported by modern zoologists is the 406 mm skull in Mazak (1983). However this skull has not been measured or even just seen by V. Mazak and nobody, including Mazak, can assert with “scientific confidence” that this skull ever existed. According to V. Mazak the measurements of that skull were written on the back of its picture brought to Mazak by a Czech coming from China who had hand-written those measurements. There is no trace of this skull nowhere and nobody can check those measurements (which should be checked by scientists particularly as far larger then any other Amur and Bengal tiger skull measured by scientists to be accepted). Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) removed the length of that skull from the analysis of greatest length of tiger skull vs latitude that Kitchener had initially published in 1999 including the supposed 406 mm Amur tiger skull suggesting Kitchener realized including measurements from that skull was not scientifically acceptable. Same conclusion for the supposed 400 mm Amur tiger skull reported by Baikov (1925), a skull nobody saw it, nobody knows where it is and nobody knows how it would have been measured (with teeth and/or mandible included or not). In conclusion and in general for me (completely) silly is for sure who compares and is very much used to compare apples to oranges meaning applying different criteria to establish selection of equally reliable and accurate data particularly, but not only, when making comparisons and therefore taking some particular data for one side only, omitting comparable data and twisting or misunderstanding other data. Concerning skull size, body size and weight of tigers compared to bears and tigers compared to lions I have seen that this is very much common practice from some people. WaveRiders Edited by WaveRiders_, Oct 5 2015, 05:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Warsaw2014 | Oct 14 2015, 04:21 AM Post #3 |
|
Herbivore
|
peter wrote: AMUR TIGERS When in Chabarowsk to change for a plain for Kamsjatka, Charlie Russell met with Dr. Alexander Khulikov and Dr. Juri Dunishenko. Although he didn't provide details, I assumed they met in the Chabarowsk Natural History Museum. They showed him the collection. Russell saw a great many skulls of Amur tigers and Amur brown bears. Row after row of skulls, he wrote. They compared the skulls: " ... Although brown bear skulls were larger, the difference was limited. I never knew a cat could grow to this size ... " ('Grizzly', C. Russell, 2003, pp. 31). From "Grizzly Heart" by Charlie Russell, C. Russell, 2003, pp. 21)  SOURCE To be continued.... peter wrote:"When in Chabarowsk to change for a plain for Kamsjatka, Charlie Russell met with Dr. Alexander Khulikov and Dr. Juri Dunishenko. Although he didn't provide details, I assumed they met in the Chabarowsk Natural History Museum." I assumed they met in Wildlife Foundation office in Khabarovsk.Chabarowsk Natural History Museum is a different place: http://www.museum.ru/xkm/english.htm peter wrote:There also is a natural history museum in Vladivostok. It could be someone measured the skulls in these museums, but I never read anything. Just imagine: hundreds and hundreds of skulls of wild Amur tigers and not one document. They were smaller than those of brown bears, but the difference was limited. How limited, nobody knows It sounds promising, but... "...The maximum skull length of tiger is evidently equal to 385 mm (V.G. Heptner; see later) or possibly 400 mm (Baikov, 1925). Among lions the maximum skull length may reach 390 and even 400 mm (Roberts, 1962), the world record being 419 mm (Best et al., 1962)..." "...The sizes of almost all the skulls preserved in Soviet museums are given in the Tables; measurements which fall slightly beyond the indicated limits are not included. A skull (presei-ved in Harbin) has a maximum length of 400 mm and a zygomatic width of 280 mm (Baikov, 1925)..."  From"Mammals of the ^ Soviet Union VG. Heptner A. A. Sludskii http://archive.org/stream/mammalsofsov221992gept/mammalsofsov221992gept_djvu.txt From"Tigers (Panthera tigris, P. sondaica and P. sumatrae) in the Collection of the Museum für Tierkunde Dresden (Carnivora: Felidae) Tygři (Panthera tigris, P. sondaica a P. sumatrae) ve sbírkách Zoologického musea Drážďany (Carnivora: Felidae) "...The male B25395 is one of the largest Siberian tigers; only one skull from Northeast China in the Museum in Berlin is larger (MAZÁK 1983). Some measurements of the skulls are given in Table 4..."  So only one "extraprdinary abberant "(Stroganov) siberian tiger skull "has a maximum length of 400 mm and a zygomatic width of 280 mm" but this record come from Baikov . peter wrote:As far as I know, only few skulls of wild Amur tigers were measured. I think that almost all (or all?) the skulls preserved in Russian and European museum collections were measured,but most of them "fall slightly beyond the indicated limits are not included" Anyway "The maximum skull length of tiger is evidently equal to 385 mm" peter wrote"How limited, nobody knows" Peter As far I know you "read Kucherenko's opinion on the size of some specimen's" Right So, you also read Kucherenko's opinion on the skull size of SOME SPECIMENS  "How limited " at least it should be know to you. Edited by Warsaw2014, Oct 19 2015, 07:12 AM.
|
|
|
|
| chui | Oct 14 2015, 07:41 AM Post #4 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
|
When it comes to skulls listed in the hunting records, I agree the Boone and Crockett records are of particularly high standard and can largely be considered reliable. Too bad they only cover North American game. SCI records for lion, leopard, and cougar skulls seem completely useless and full of exaggerated measurements. Often times the length and width of the skull appear totally inconsistent with each other and the photographs accompanying some of the top listings often show very mediocre looking specimens which in no way support the claimed and ridiculous skull measurements. I'm sure there are some reliable listings in there but they are lost in the sea of many fabricated records. For Rowland Wards, I think it's also hit and miss but they generally appear more reliable than SCI records and are worth some consideration, at least the editions I have seen. The latest edition of Rowland Ward I have seen is the one from 1975 which is exclusive to African game. Interestingly, in the case of both the lion and African leopard skulls it's really the number 1 listings (from I. Makenzie and Frank Hibben, respectively) which appear completely bogus and damage the credibility of the records. The skulls following thereafter appear mostly believable and some of the very biggest lion and leopard skulls listed can be corroborated by other credible sources. However, I can't speak of more recent editions and it's possible there are many more fabricated records in the newer editions. Also, some of the records of Indian leopard skulls in the older editions are very questionable. In the end, these records of course cannot be accepted outright due to the issues with credibility and should not be compared with scientific data as Waveriders has stated. Nonetheless looking at the records individually and investigating them further from other sources when possible can sometimes yield some interesting info. Also, while the skull length in the Rowland Ward records is measured with the mandible attached and thus not directly comparable to those from scientific sources I would imagine the skull width should not be affected by this method and therefore should be of more use. Furthermore, since the skulls in Rowland Wards were ranked according to skull length as opposed to total score (at least upto the 1975 edition), skull width was probably less prone to exaggeration as a hunter would not really benefit from boasting this measurement. For example, in the case of both Makenzie's lion skull (466.8mm x 266.7mm) and Frank Hibben's leopard skull (298.5mm x 149.2mm) the widths are in fact unrealistically narrow in relation to the claimed skull lengths. You'd think these guys would at least have tried to keep the proportions right when they were marking up the size of their trophies. |
|
|
|
| Warsaw2014 | Oct 18 2015, 04:08 AM Post #5 |
|
Herbivore
|
"When it comes to skulls listed in the hunting records, I agree the Boone and Crockett records are of particularly high standard and can largely be considered reliable" I completely agree with you.   http://www.boone-crockett.org/store/index.asp?area=store&prodID=6EBD2B02-FA3B-45A0-8E86-570F333BD590&CatID=6&action=detail When the skull lenght is taken into account,measurement error will be small (some millimeters at best IMO) Also, while the skull length in the Rowland Ward records is measured with the mandible attached and thus not directly comparable to those from scientific sources I would imagine the skull width should not be affected by this method and therefore should be of more use Yes skull width is easy to measure and should be treated as credible. A clear example is in my opinion a consideration one can make that just mentioning the supposed lion skull measuring 18 3/8 inches (466.7 mm) in length and 10 1/2 inches (266.7 mm) in zygomathic width of an animal shot in August 1968 in Eastern Transvaal by I. Mackenzie reported in the editions of Rowland Ward of the last 45 years being even just a little bit serious is completely non-sense I agree. BTW http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47489621#page/183/mode/1up   BTW Here's 17 inch lion skull from Rowland Ward 's Records of Big Game  Anyway lion skull can grow to a length of over 40 cm Clearly lion skull >tiger skull   http://www.researchgate.net/publication/229958542_Brain_size_of_the_lion_(Panthera_leo)_and_the_tiger_(P._tigris)_Implications_for_intrageneric_phylogeny_intraspecific_differences_and_the_effects_of_captivity http://www.snowleopardnetwork.org/bibliography/Stroganov_1962.pdf https://archive.org/stream/mammalsofsov221992gept#page/140/mode/1up 
Edited by Warsaw2014, Oct 18 2015, 07:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| « Previous Topic · Video & Image Gallery · Next Topic » |
1:56 AM Jul 14
