+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Extinct Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-extinct-animals)
+---- Forum: Pleistocene Big Cats (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-pleistocene-big-cats)
+---- Thread: Cave lion cub (/topic-cave-lion-cub)
Cave lion cub - Xclusive_ASN - 07-03-2016
*This image is copyright of its original author
So most of us know about the dead cave lion found in siberia,
My question is , Is it really possible to clone this lion?
RE: Cave lion cub - Spalea - 07-03-2016
@Xclusive_ASN:
In theory, yes, it would be possible, but technologically we are still not able to do it... That is just my opinion, I could be wrong. The most important would be to find a complete strand/sequence DNA.
RE: Cave lion cub - Siegfried - 07-03-2016
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0606-south-koreans-kick-off-efforts-to-clone-extinct-siberian-cave-lions/
RE: Cave lion cub - brotherbear - 08-20-2016
http://www.eartharchives.org/sharebars/820
Paleogenetics confirm that the cave lion was a species all its own.
- By Brian Switek on August 22, 2016
RE: Cave lion cub - GuateGojira - 09-06-2016
I am really impressed that nobody has commented on this last paper!!!
Anyone have read it???
It finally concluded that the cave "lions" are NOT lions at all, that they are they OWN SPECIES!!! That is a very important news, as it close an old debate on this issue.
It is now a fact that although this large Pantherine was of the same clade of lions, it is less related with lions than modern leopards and jaguars.
We should make a special topic for this, and present also an historic description about other old studies on this.
RE: Cave lion cub - Blackleopard - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 08:59 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: I am really impressed that nobody has commented on this last paper!!!
Anyone have read it???
It finally concluded that the cave "lions" are NOT lions at all, that they are they OWN SPECIES!!! That is a very important news, as it close an old debate on this issue.
It is now a fact that although this large Pantherine was of the same clade of lions, it is less related with lions than modern leopards and jaguars.
We should make a special topic for this, and present also an historic description about other old studies on this.
What about the American Lion aren't they related to lions? I mean if their logic is based on that its less related to lions than jaguars and leopards, that doesn't really mean anything, because its not proven lions ever evolved from jaguars or vice versa leopards. Its just an opinion, or theory. I think the evidence is, do the skeletons of the Cave lions resemble actual lions.
RE: Cave lion cub - GrizzlyClaws - 09-06-2016
In my opinion, both Cave lion and American lion were lions, albeit different species of lion.
Just like Homo erectus and Neanderthal were archaic humans, also different species from the modern humans (Homo sapiens).
RE: Cave lion cub - GuateGojira - 09-07-2016
(09-06-2016, 10:33 AM)Blackleopard Wrote:(09-06-2016, 08:59 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: I am really impressed that nobody has commented on this last paper!!!
Anyone have read it???
It finally concluded that the cave "lions" are NOT lions at all, that they are they OWN SPECIES!!! That is a very important news, as it close an old debate on this issue.
It is now a fact that although this large Pantherine was of the same clade of lions, it is less related with lions than modern leopards and jaguars.
We should make a special topic for this, and present also an historic description about other old studies on this.
What about the American Lion aren't they related to lions? I mean if their logic is based on that its less related to lions than jaguars and leopards, that doesn't really mean anything, because its not proven lions ever evolved from jaguars or vice versa leopards. Its just an opinion, or theory. I think the evidence is, do the skeletons of the Cave lions resemble actual lions.
Just a little question? How is possible that when Barnett et al. in 2009, proposed that the cave lions were true part of the "lions" family, all the lion-enthusiast used that document like a Bible, but now that a new document of 2016, with far more evidence and better data, from the same persons, that show that these animals are NOT lions, is presented, you simple classified it like an "opinion"? That attitude could sound a little fishy, don't you think?
First of all, what you say that doesn't mean anything, is in fact the most important. The new DNA evidence based in bone AND hair (never used before, because it has never been discovered), show that the cave "lions" split from the "lion clade" more than a million years ago, while the jaguar and leopards separated from the true lions just about 600,000 or 700,000 years, more or less depending of the study. This simply show that these FOUR SPECIES are related but are not the same, and this would be the classification:
1. Cave lion-like Panther - Panthera spelaea (including Panthera (spelaea) atrox).
2. Jaguar - Panthera onca.
3. Leopard - Panthera pardus.
4. Lion - Panthera leo.
It is quite clear what Barnet et al. (2016) have discovered, it is more easy if you read both, the paper of 2009 and now the paper of 2016.
Second, no one have say that lions evolved from jaguars of leopards, nor I or the document. What Dr Barnett and I stated is that these four species are a single "Clade", and represent a subfamily, like for example the modern tiger, the snow leopard and the extinct Longdang "tiger" belongs to the "Tiger clade". This means that they are a subfamily too, but it is very obvious that none of these are ALL tigers, like the four members of the "lion clade" are not all lions.
Finally, it you stick with the skeletons ONLY, in fact, they do not resemble lions at the perfection. The Eurasian cave lions are present in two forms (spelaea and fossilis) and Sotnikova & Nikolskiy (2006) proved that both these forms are different from the modern lion, particularly in the skull. Merriam & Stock (1932) already stated that the American "lion" (Panthera atrox) had lion characteristics, but also jaguar characteristics, which are confirmed by the modern morphological study of Christiansen & Harris (2009). The idea of Hemmer that they were lions is based in simple parallelisms of the skull, but deeper studies from modern scientists showed that none of this taxa resemble 100% lions. In fact, the skeleton of the American "lion" is said to show a slender animal, with relative shorted head and longer limbs. So, if we use only skeletons, we can see that these Pleistocene great cats do not resemble to modern lions, but they have they own characteristics and also present jaguar-like features, showing its primitive form in relation with the other 3 members of the lion clade.
RE: Cave lion cub - Blackleopard - 09-07-2016
Hey maybe they're not related, I don't know that much about the prehistoric records and fossils. I'm just saying, the whole this animal came from that animal, this grew from an ameba, that thing grew feathers, its just not actual fact, just as it isn't fact that humans came from apes, none of this can be proven as actual fact, and science should be about facts only, not we don't know so we'll just pretend we do.
Each cat species whether tiger, leopard, or lion, is its own species, and there are no missing links that can be found between them, just as there are no missing links between any other animal. Only small adaptations to unique environments, not whole species jumping from one to another. The genetic code and design in a living creature is far to sophisticated and complex to just morph into another completely different species or animal. No matter how long given, it still wouldn't matter, changes in environments would only cause the minor changes needed to fit those environmental changes, so the environment helps subtle changes to take place, no environment could be so full of unique changes that it could perform species hopping, and even species creating, that would basically be supernatural. Even one of the biggest environmental changes, the ice age, wiped out some of the most sophisticated and largest land creatures the dinosaurs.
Further evidence in many cultures also proves the existence of the supernatural, many examples of this are evident in different religions, strange feats have been performed, Chi power used in various Asian and Indian religions, levitation, healings, actual sightings. This sheds light, there is something else out there, and that the world does not just consist of the natural, whether that something is good or bad.
RE: Cave lion cub - GrizzlyClaws - 09-07-2016
Guate, are the jaguar only diverged 600,000 - 700,000 years from the lion?
But the European jaguar lived way before that, and it is undoubtedly an ancestral species to the modern jaguar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_jaguar
RE: Cave lion cub - GrizzlyClaws - 09-07-2016
(09-07-2016, 08:54 AM)Blackleopard Wrote: Hey maybe they're not related, I don't know that much about the prehistoric records and fossils. I'm just saying, the whole this animal came from that animal, this grew from an ameba, that thing grew feathers, its just not actual fact, just as it isn't fact that humans came from apes, none of this can be proven as actual fact, and science should be about facts only, not we don't know so we'll just pretend we do.
Each cat species whether tiger, leopard, or lion, is its own species, and there are no missing links that can be found between them, just as there are no missing links between any other animal. Only small adaptations to unique environments, not whole species jumping from one to another. The genetic code and design in a living creature is far to sophisticated and complex to just morph into another completely different species or animal. No matter how long given, it still wouldn't matter, changes in environments would only cause the minor changes needed to fit those environmental changes, so the environment helps subtle changes to take place, no environment could be so full of unique changes that it could perform species hopping, and even species creating, that would basically be supernatural. Even one of the biggest environmental changes, the ice age, wiped out some of the most sophisticated and largest land creatures the dinosaurs.
Further evidence in many cultures also proves the existence of the supernatural, many examples of this are evident in different religions, strange feats have been performed, Chi power used in various Asian and Indian religions, levitation, healings, actual sightings. This sheds light, there is something else out there, and that the world does not just consist of the natural, whether that something is good or bad.
I and @tigerluver came up with a theory that the Cave lion and African lion both shared a common ancestor back 2 million years ago in Africa.
Those primitive lions should first emerge from the history back in 3.5 million years ago and so on.
The Cave lions happened to be descended from the group that left Africa in roughly 2 million years ago, and the modern African lions descended from the group that stayed.
RE: Cave lion cub - Blackleopard - 09-07-2016
Yeah I'd believe they eventually came from some form of lion, but there is no evidence of whole species morphing from one to another. There is only slow minor adaptions within species according to environment.
Grizzly claws, what do you think of the differences in canines between the Bigcats, tigers are longest right, yet it seems there is evidence from various sources showing lions have teeth that can withstand more pressure, and the shorter canine being less likely to break in excessive fighting and gripping large buffalo?
RE: Cave lion cub - GrizzlyClaws - 09-07-2016
@
With a long period of genetic isolation, the isolated group would eventually mutate into another species.
Keep in mind that the Cave lion had been isolated from the African lion for almost 2 million years without any genetic exchange. In comparison, the Asiatic lion and Barbary lion had only been isolated from the African lion for 100,000 years. Meanwhile, the Asiatic lion and Barbary lion were straightly evolved from the African lion without any genetic barrier. The Cave lion only shared a common ancestor with the African lion back in 2 million years ago, but they didn't evolve from the African lion, nor vice versa.
They are just another brand of lion that cannot be considered as a subspecies of the African lion. You can consider both Asiatic lion and Barbary lion as a subspecies of the African lion, but not with the Cave lion.
As for the canine, tiger canine seems to overwhelmingly dominate in the absolute length and thickness with those extreme examples, so I am not sure how it would be considered weaker to withstand more pressure.
RE: Cave lion cub - Apollo - 09-07-2016
(09-07-2016, 09:26 AM)Blackleopard Wrote: Yeah I'd believe they eventually came from some form of lion, but there is no evidence of whole species morphing from one to another. There is only slow minor adaptions within species according to environment.
Grizzly claws, what do you think of the differences in canines between the Bigcats, tigers are longest right, yet it seems there is evidence from various sources showing lions have teeth that can withstand more pressure, and the shorter canine being less likely to break in excessive fighting and gripping large buffalo?
When it comes to canines tigers have the longest, heaviest and robust canines of all bigcats.
The ability to withstand more pressure depends on the bending strength of the canines.
Tiger canines have the highest bending strength of all bigcats which is followed by jaguars and then lions.
Remember the following studies and data is based on all tiger subspecies, if we were to consider only the bengals and amurs then the results would be higher.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Cave lion cub - peter - 09-07-2016
I knew about the lion cub found well north of Yakutia, but missed the exchange in this thread. Posts 3 and 4 are very interesting. The lion cub opened a lot of doors of hidden rooms.
The photograph of the skull in the article in post 4 is interesting as well. Compared to the big cat skulls I saw (lion, tiger, jaguar and leopard), it's a bit different. The facial part, as in modern lions, is stretched, but a bit less inflated. The mandibula isn't convex, as in modern lions, but straight and even a bit concave, pointing towards a different use of the jaw and the teeth. The canines, however, are very similar to what I saw in modern lion skulls (referring to the angle, shape and size).
I agree with Guate's advice to start a new thread. This is something that deserves special attention in more than one way.