Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
13Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Distinguishing Skulls of Lions (Panthera Leo) and Tigers (Panthera Tigris)

Distinguishing Skulls of Lions (Panthera Leo) and Tigers (Panthera Tigris)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,687|Likes:
Published by brentlion
Distinguishing skulls of lions (panthera leo) and tigers (panthera tigris).
Distinguishing skulls of lions (panthera leo) and tigers (panthera tigris).

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: brentlion on Sep 13, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/26/2012

pdf

text

original

 
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Distinguishing skulls of lions (
Panthera leo
) and tigers (
Panthera tigris
)
Per Christiansen
Ã
Zoological Museum, Department of Vertebrates, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen
+
, Denmark 
Received 27 June 2007; accepted 8 August 2007
Keywords:
Lion; Tiger; Skull morphology; Morphometry
Introduction
The lion (
Panthera leo
L.) and the tiger (
Pantheratigris
L.) are the largest extant felids (Nowak 1991;Sunquist and Sunquist 2002), and their conspicuous andimmediately recognisable external morphology beliesthe fact that osteologically, they are very similar. Fewcomparative analyses have been done on their skullmorphology, and, accordingly, explicit characters dis-tinguishing lions and tigers are not presently known.It used to be held that there were a plethora of characters distinguishing lion and tiger skulls.Boule(1906)was the first to formulate a list of morphologicalcharacters supposedly distinguishing the two species.These were discussed by subsequent authors such asPocock (1929, 1930, 1939),Merriam and Stock (1932), andMaza ´k (1983), and to some extentHaltenorth(1936, 1937); (skull morphology) andKabitzsch (1960); (dental morphology). These studies indicated thatpurported distinguishing characters were often blurredby inclusion of multiple specimens. Also, the purporteddistinguishing characters were often semantically vague,resulting in interpretative confusion. This has led to awidespread notion that lion and tiger skulls areosteologically similar as to be almost identical (e.g.,Hemmer 1987,Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Indeed, some authors have even argued that the lion and thetiger are conspecific (e.g.,Hilzheimer 1924).It is true that easily recognisable characters distin-guishing singular lions and tigers are frequently blurredand even obliterated when analysing large samples.However, their skulls are by no means osteologicallyidentical, and producing a multivariate analysis whichdistinguishes lions from tigers with 100% certainty iseasily accomplished, as shown below (see alsoHerring-ton 1987). However, the purpose of this study was toformulate explicit singular characters that distinguishlions and tigers with virtual certainty, regardless of sizeand sexual differences, thus also facilitating easyidentification of misidentified skulls or skulls of un-known nature.Thirty-nine skull and mandibular variables weremeasured on high-resolution digital images of 100 tigers(54
#
, 46
~
) and 134 lions (79
#
, 55
~
) from theNatural History Museum, London (BM); ZoologicalMuseum in Copenhagen (CN); Museum Nationald’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN); Naturhistoriskariksmuseet, Stockholm (NRM); Naturmuseum Senck-enberg, Frankfurt (SMF); and Staatliches Museum fu ˆrNaturkunde, Stuttgart (SMNS); and Museum fu ¨rNaturkunde, Berlin (ZMB).To ensure representative samples, several traditionallyrecognised subspecies were included. Four of thetraditionally recognised eight tiger subspecies(e.g.,Maza ´k 1981, 1996;Seidensticker et al. 1999; Mazak and Groves 2006; but seeKitchener 1999;Wentzel et al. 1999;Luo et al. 2004) were included; 42 Bengal tigers (
P.t. tigris
[27
#
, 15
~
]), 25 Corbett’s tigers (
P.t. corbetti 
[11
#
, 14
~
]), 17 Javan tigers (
P.t. sondaica
[9
#
, 8
~
]),and 16 Sumatran tigers (
P.t. sumatrae
[7
#
, 9
~
]). Three
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.de/mambio1616-5047/$-see front matter
r
2007 Deutsche Gesellschaft fu ¨r Sa ¨ugetierkunde. Published by Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2007.08.001Mamm. biol.
]
(
]]]]
)
]]]
 – 
]]]
Ã
Tel.: +4535321093; fax: +4535321010.
E-mail addresses:
p2christiansen@zmuc.ku.dk,p2christiansen@snm.ku.dk (P. Christiansen).Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (
Panthera leo
) and tigers (
Panthera...
. Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/ j.mambio.2007.08.001
 
of the traditionally recognised eight lion subspecies(Hemmer 1974;Christiansen, 2007a) were included; 92 East African lions (
P.l. nubica
[56
#
, 36
~
]), 21Southwest African lions (
P.l. bleyenbergh
[12
#
, 9
~
]), and 21 Southeast African lions (
P.l. krugeri 
[11
#
,10
~
]). Analyses on upper canine height only encom-passed 78 tigers (38
#
, 40
~
) and 107 lions (61
#
, 46
~
),and analyses on lower canine height encompassed 68tigers (44
#
, 24
~
) and 74 lions (47
#
, 27
~
), owing tocanines either being damaged, broken or even missing.Additionally, several specimens either lacked or hadbroken or partial mandibles. Only adult specimens wereused, as indicated by full dental eruption and suturalfusion along the ventral part of the basicranium. Allvariables were divided by condylobasal skull length orlower jaw horizontal ramus length, as appropriate. Torestore normality (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) the ratios werearcsine (angular) transformed prior to analysis, and one-way analyses of variance were performed on the ratios.Most ratios (30 of 39) were significantly different(
 p
o
0.01) between the two species in analyses of variance, but most nonetheless displayed substantialoverlap of ratios, indicating that certain identificationwould not be possible with most singular ratios,statistically significantly different or not. A multivariateprincipal components analysis (Fig. 1) on the measuredvariables showed clear separation between the twospecies, and little overlap among males and femaleswithin each species. Subsequent discriminant analysis onthe principal components indicated that there were cleardifferences among lion males, lion females, tiger males,and tiger females (Wilk’s Lambda
¼
0.0318;
p
o
0.0001).There was slight misidentification in a resulting Jack-knifed classification matrix, where three lion femaleswere misclassified as males (6.5% misclassification), and6 lion males were misclassified as females (9.8%). Threetiger females were misclassified as males (7.5%) andthree tiger males were misclassified as females (7.9%). Amultivariate analysis, accordingly, facilitates clear dis-tinction between lions and tigers with no overlap, butsingular variables were required that could distinguishbetween the two species with certainty. Thus, only ratiosthat are statistically significantly different and showvirtually no overlap between the two species arereported below.Four variables fulfilled these criteria when divided tocondylobasal skull length or lower jaw length, asappropriate; nasal length, height of the snout, and theheight of the upper and of the lower canine, respectively.Nasal length was the full length from the ventral tip of the lateral extensions along the narial aperture to thepoint of truncation at the frontals, snout height wasfrom the ventral part of the I
3
alveolus to the ventralpart of the nasals, and canine heights were crown heightin a straight line from the alveolar margin to thecrown apex.The average absolute values for lions and tigers arelisted inTable 1, and ratios are shown inFig. 2. Nasal length to condylobasal skull length (Fig. 2A) in the lion(0.318
7
0.016; range: 0.272–0.354) is highly significantlyless (
 p
o
0.0001) than in the tiger (0.369
7
0.012; range:0.343–0.415). Mazak and Groves (2006) found thatSumatran tigers had shorter nasal bones than otherSoutheast Asian subspecies. This is not confirmed in thepresent analysis. Nasal length/skull length in the in-cluded subspecies were: Corbett’s tiger (0.370
7
0.013;range: 0.351–0.388); Bengal tiger (0.372
7
0.011; 0.353– 0.415); Javan tiger (0.364
7
0.010; 0.343–0.374); andSumatran tiger (0.363
7
0.012; 0.349–0.380). None aresignificantly different from each other (
 p
4
0.10), theclosest
p
values is the Bengal tiger to the Javan(
 p
¼
0.127) and Sumatran (
 p
¼
0.101) subspecies.Merely 2 of 134 lions have nasal/skull length values ator above 0.35 (0.350 and 0.354, respectively), and,accordingly, only a very modest overlap of extremeoutliers are present on this ratio variable.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1.
Plot of the first two principal components on 30 skullvariables in 107 lions and 78 tigers. Variables included:condylobasal skull length; facial length (maxilla–premaxillaat gumline); length of sagittal crest; crown height and alveolarwidth of C
1
; skull height in straight line at snout, P
3
/P
4
, andpterygoid-postorbital process; height of zygomatic arch atmaxilla and posterior to postorbital zygomatic process; nasallength; width across nasals at narial aperture and at maxilla– frontal suture; muzzle, orbital, postorbital, and cranial width;length of secondary palate; width across incisor arcade,between C
1
, at P
3
and P
4
, at pterygoid, across zygomaticarches, mastoid processes, and occipital condyles; and lengthand width of P
3
and P
4
. Principal component 1 explains 67.2%of sample variation, and is primarily associated with skull andpalatal lengths, and widths across the muzzle, incisors, andpalatal width at P
3
and P
4
. Principal component 2 explains10.3% of sample variation, and is primarily associated with C
1
height and nasal length. Symbols
&
, lion (
Panthera leo
;
#
);
2
, lion (
Panthera le
o;
~
);
J
, tiger (
Panthera tigris
;
#
);
,tiger (
Panthera tigris
;
~
).
P. Christiansen / Mamm. biol.
]
(
]]]]
)
]]]
 – 
]]]
2Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (
Panthera leo
) and tigers (
Panthera...
. Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/ j.mambio.2007.08.001
 
The sexual distribution of nasal/skull length ratios inthe tiger is non-random, and females dominate the lowerend of the range (Fig. 2A). Average nasal length/skullratios in tiger males (0.375
7
0.007) is significantly(
 p
o
0.001) higher than in females (0.363
7
0.013). Inthe lion no such difference is apparent (
 p
¼
0.995). Anallometry analysis of condylobasal skull length (
) andnasal length (
) confirmed this pattern, and theregression slope in the tiger (
b
¼
1.171
7
0.079;
r
¼
0.965) is highly significantly (
 p
o
0.001) steeper than the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1.
Average skull and lower jaw measurements in lions and tigers in mm (
7
SD)AveragesAll tigers Tiger
#
Tiger
~
All lions Lion
#
Lion
~
Skull length 276.9
7
24.4 291.9
7
21.4 259.4
7
13.9 297.6
7
29.2 317.6
7
19.0 268.9
7
12.2Upper canine height 54.83
7
7.07 58.43
7
6.43 50.91
7
5.64 48.32
7
5.36 51.58
7
3.55 43.36
7
2.93Snout height 40.16
7
4.58 42.25
7
3.92 37.70
7
4.09 52.42
7
5.48 55.74
7
4.20 47.64
7
2.99Length of nasal 102.4
7
11.1 109.5
7
8.86 94.15
7
6.82 94.61
7
9.86 100.9
7
7.34 85.56
7
4.48Lower jaw length 190.6
7
36.9 194.6
7
44.4 183.2
7
12.6 221.0
7
24.8 234.1
7
19.5 198.2
7
14.2Lower canine height 43.59
7
8.89 44.50
7
10.4 41.80
7
4.29 41.60
7
4.06 43.50
7
3.11 38.19
7
3.27
Fig. 2.
Plots of ratios to condylobasal skull length or lower jaw length, as appropriate, in lions and tigers. White columns, lions; greycolumns, tigers. Cross-hatching indicates number of females: (A) nasal length to skull length; (B) snout height to skull length;(C) upper canine height to skull length; (D) lower canine height to lower jaw length.
P. Christiansen / Mamm. biol.
]
(
]]]]
)
]]]
 – 
]]]
3Please cite this article as: Christiansen, P., Distinguishing skulls of lions (
Panthera leo
) and tigers (
Panthera...
. Mamm. Biol. (2007), doi:10.1016/ j.mambio.2007.08.001

Activity (13)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Wajdi Nassier liked this
Dirinea Dani liked this
Konrad Grosser liked this
Ernesto Alvarez liked this
Ben Huang liked this
Mithilesh Jha liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->