Tiger subspecific taxonomy is controversial because of morphological and genetic variation found between now fragmented populations, yet the extent to which phenotypic plasticity or genetic variation affects phenotypes of putative tiger subspecies has not been explicitly addressed. In order to assess the role of phenotypic plasticity in determining skull variation, we compared skull morphology among continental tigers from zoos and the wild. In turn, we examine continental tiger skulls from across their wild range, to evaluate how the different environmental conditions experienced by individuals in the wild can influence morphological variation. Fifty-seven measurements from 172 specimens were used to analyse size and shape differences among wild and captive continental tiger skulls. Captive specimens have broader skulls, and shorter rostral depths and mandible heights than wild specimens. In addition, sagittal crest size is larger in wild Amur tigers compared with those from captivity, and it is larger in wild Amur tigers compared with other wild continental tigers. The degree of phenotypic plasticity shown by the sagittal crest, skull width and rostral height suggests that the distinctive shape of Amur tiger skulls compared with that of other continental tigers is mostly a phenotypically plastic response to differences in their environments.
Zoo animals are crucial for conserving and potentially re-introducing species to the wild, yet it is known that the morphology of captive animals differs from that of wild animals. It is important to know how and why zoo and wild animal morphology differs to better care for captive animals and enhance their survival in reintroductions, and to understand how plasticity may influence morphology, which is supposedly indicative of evolutionary relationships. Using museum collections, we took 56 morphological measurements of skulls and mandibles from 617 captive and wild lions and tigers, reflecting each species' recent historical range. Linear morphometrics were used to identify differences in size and shape. Skull size does not differ between captive and wild lions and tigers, but skull and mandible shape does. Differences occur in regions associated with biting, indicating that diet has influenced forces acting upon the skull and mandible. The diets of captive big cats used in this study predominantly consisted of whole or partial carcasses, which closely resemble the mechanical properties of wild diets. Thus, we speculate that the additional impacts of killing, manipulating and consuming large prey in the wild have driven differentiation between captive and wild big cats.