WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Extinct Animals
›
Pleistocene Big Cats
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
|
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
|
  *This image is copyright of its original author Ngandong tiger femur (right) and wild P. t. altaica (left). The Ngandong bone strikes as odd so often that I'm sometimes inclined to separate it as a species. The distal end "is massive" as vK put it, but also a weirdly round in shape from this view, although the posterior view it looks more normal. The caput is also very thick and wide. The right femur is of poor resolution so it looks slightly wider than it really is. The Ngandong femur and humerus are weird as a whole. Really wide with the proximal ends extending down the long bone at a difference ratio than in modern tigers. Only the skull is what strikingly resembles P. t. sondaica and P. t. balica. 
@tigerluver, could you do me a favor to compare this massive fang to an Amur tiger skull cast?
Just wondering what is the exact skull size of this massive individual.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
@GrizzlyClaws, here's the result:
 *This image is copyright of its original author I highly doubt that is a right reconstruction of that specimen. That specimen probably had exceptional long canines for its skull, with emphasis on the exceptional, so this replica produced an overestimate..
Agree, a GSL of 497 mm is definitely an overestimation for any big cat species, but how about comparing with the actual skulls instead of the resin cast?
We have two Bengal skulls with the GSL and the entire length of the canine, and Amur/Bengal overall has the similar canine proportion, so I think it is suitable for the comparison. Here is a 16 inches Bengal skull with a 5.5 inches canine. And a 6.6 inches canine will give a 19.2 inches skull for this proportion sample.  *This image is copyright of its original author Here is a 340 mm wild Bengal skull, and its entire canine is 120 mm. So a 167 mm canine will give a 473 mm skull for this proportion sample. http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-the-king-of-the-tigers?page=19
Here is a skull of the prehistoric Sunda tiger. Credit to Zoologist.ru
http://forum.zoologist.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1302&p=19  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (02-13-2016, 05:29 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Agree, a GSL of 497 mm is definitely an overestimation for any big cat species, but how about comparing with the actual skulls instead of the resin cast? Interesting to note that the 10'4'' is smaller than the shorter tiger in all departments outside of total skull length. Something tells me that the 9'8'' tiger was built like a bear.
Some tigers are built like tank, every part of their body is heavier and denser.
10 cm but weighs 67 grams.  *This image is copyright of its original author 12 cm but only weighs 62 grams.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Is that the vK skull? Images for comparison:
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author The mandible is not vK's, none of them are broken at the body like that. The left arch has a protrustion not in vK's skull either. The gap in the nostril curves the opposite direction too.
Was "Felis paleojavanicus" the old synonym of the Ngandong tiger?
vK split the two large cats he found into Felis tigris soloensis and Felis palaeojavanicus. The former were the smaller specimens, and the latter the larger. At this point, everyone agrees they are the same species.
Back to the skull, the cristae (back end of skull) also looks more rounded and complete than vK's skull. Am I seeing things here? What do you guys think. If this is vK's skull I need to jump on it, no one has been able to track this stuff down.
I assume that was just the intra variation of the species.
BTW, it would be better if that new skull has the measurement.
It tough for me to tell without seeing them side by side to really notice such subtle differences
My focus is on figuring out if its the vK skull.
 *This image is copyright of its original author See the middle incisors are missing in both. Here are the areas I want you to check out:  *This image is copyright of its original author What do you guys see? @GrizzlyClaws, any idea who, where, and how got that photo?
I don't know the original source of that photo, since it was posted on zoologist.ru.
BTW, maybe it was taken in photo by someone who has visited the museum in Indonesia.
I think the angle is a bit deceptive, but the crack is similar, you'd need to view the one on the right from directly above to be certain. Also the black and white seems to show more damage on it that I can't tell if its superficially contributed by the black and white or actually damaged.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |