(05-13-2022, 04:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-13-2022, 04:02 AM)jrocks Wrote: oh wow, so this means that the bornean tiger could rival populator in weight or even surpass it

Yes, because even when Panthera members are not as robust as Smilodon members, the size itself of this specimen compensate it.

(05-13-2022, 08:27 AM)jrocks Wrote:

(05-13-2022, 04:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-13-2022, 04:02 AM)jrocks Wrote: oh wow, so this means that the bornean tiger could rival populator in weight or even surpass it

Yes, because even when Panthera members are not as robust as Smilodon members, the size itself of this specimen compensate it.

this borneo specimen must have been absolutely massive. i did some more looking into it to see if i could find any populator specimens that were estimated to be around the range of this borneo specimen, i found Prevosti and Martin in 2013 estimated a humerus and tibia and some dental bones of populator to be 517 kg, the populator specimen in the Sherani 2019 study was said to be 450 kg, and then there was a populator specimen that Peter Lund estimated to be more than 500 kg, but that specimen then got destroyed in the fire of the national museum of Rio De Janeiro in 2018, were these 3 specimens larger or smaller in size compared to the 405 mm humerus found by kurten and werdelin in 1990 and the 16.07 inch skull? also are there any pictures of the specimen peter lund estimated before it got destroyed

(05-13-2022, 08:38 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(05-13-2022, 08:27 AM)jrocks Wrote:

(05-13-2022, 04:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-13-2022, 04:02 AM)jrocks Wrote: oh wow, so this means that the bornean tiger could rival populator in weight or even surpass it

Yes, because even when Panthera members are not as robust as Smilodon members, the size itself of this specimen compensate it.

this borneo specimen must have been absolutely massive. i did some more looking into it to see if i could find any populator specimens that were estimated to be around the range of this borneo specimen, i found Prevosti and Martin in 2013 estimated a humerus and tibia and some dental bones of populator to be 517 kg, the populator specimen in the Sherani 2019 study was said to be 450 kg, and then there was a populator specimen that Peter Lund estimated to be more than 500 kg, but that specimen then got destroyed in the fire of the national museum of Rio De Janeiro in 2018, were these 3 specimens larger or smaller in size compared to the 405 mm humerus found by kurten and werdelin in 1990 and the 16.07 inch skull? also are there any pictures of the specimen peter lund estimated before it got destroyed

Can you attach the sources you are talking about?

(05-13-2022, 08:27 AM)jrocks Wrote: i did some more looking into it to see if i could find any populator specimens that were estimated to be around the range of this borneo specimen, i found Prevosti and Martin in 2013 estimated a humerus and tibia and some dental bones of populator to be 517 kg, the populator specimen in the Sherani 2019 study was said to be 450 kg, and then there was a populator specimen that Peter Lund estimated to be more than 500 kg, but that specimen then got destroyed in the fire of the national museum of Rio De Janeiro in 2018, were these 3 specimens larger or smaller in size compared to the 405 mm humerus found by kurten and werdelin in 1990 and the 16.07 inch skull? also are there any pictures of the specimen peter lund estimated before it got destroyed

(05-13-2022, 09:01 AM)jrocks Wrote: for the one that i said peter lund estimated a specimen and got a figure of around 500 kg, i unfortunately dont have any images of that estimation, i only know because a guy named mojave on carnivora mentioned it, it was a fossil from Lagoa Santa, MG, Brazil. If you look up the fire that happened to that museum it does mention that a smilodon populator fossil got destroyed, however i just cant find any images of that fossil. I was just curious as to how these 3 specimens of populator compared in size to the 405 mm humerus and the 408.4 mm skull, or those 2 as the lund one may be pretty hard to find

(05-16-2022, 11:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-13-2022, 09:01 AM)jrocks Wrote: for the one that i said peter lund estimated a specimen and got a figure of around 500 kg, i unfortunately dont have any images of that estimation, i only know because a guy named mojave on carnivora mentioned it, it was a fossil from Lagoa Santa, MG, Brazil. If you look up the fire that happened to that museum it does mention that a smilodon populator fossil got destroyed, however i just cant find any images of that fossil. I was just curious as to how these 3 specimens of populator compared in size to the 405 mm humerus and the 408.4 mm skull, or those 2 as the lund one may be pretty hard to find

I can't see the images of Carnivora for this poster Mojave. May you please put them here? Also, as I said before, we need evidence of that claim about the destroyed specimens, because this is the first time that I hear this and sound like an internet myth, but I will like to give the benefit of the doubt if evidence is presented.

As far I remember the longest humerus from S. populator is of 395 mm, one of 405 mm will be impressive.

(05-17-2022, 02:39 AM)jrocks Wrote: as for the 405 mm humerus i mentioned earlier, tigerluver said earlier in this thread that there was a 405 humerus from kerten and werdelin in 1990, so thats where i found out the 405 mm humerus from. also, do you know if there are any images of the 408.4 mm skull

(05-17-2022, 02:58 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-17-2022, 02:39 AM)jrocks Wrote: as for the 405 mm humerus i mentioned earlier, tigerluver said earlier in this thread that there was a 405 humerus from kerten and werdelin in 1990, so thats where i found out the 405 mm humerus from. also, do you know if there are any images of the 408.4 mm skull

I remember, and is just my memory, that Kurten & Wenderlin (1990) showed only measurements from the metapodials, but if @tigerluver told you that they quote an humerus of 405 mm, I will believe in him.

Sadly, the only time that I saw any data about the skull "Smilodon bonaërensis 10-1" of 408.4 mm in GSL is the document of Mendez Alzola (1933) and in any other place.

• Regression between log(bodymass) and log(chest girth)??
• Or is it the regression between cube of bodymass and chest girth??
• Or is it simply a regression between just the bodymass and chest girth?? (I'm not counting on this one)
• Or is it something entirely different from the the ones I listed?
  

(05-17-2022, 07:36 AM)jrocks Wrote: wow that document with bonaerensis 10-1 was made all the way back in 1933. Which specimen do you think was bigger, the 16.07 inch skull or the 405 mm humerus

(05-17-2022, 08:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-17-2022, 07:36 AM)jrocks Wrote: wow that document with bonaerensis 10-1 was made all the way back in 1933. Which specimen do you think was bigger, the 16.07 inch skull or the 405 mm humerus

In order to know that we will need an skeleton with associated elements, like "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46", the only associated specimen of Smilodon populator that I know (skull included).

The skull length of that specimen is of 345.7 mm and the humerus is of 395 mm. In this case, the skull of 408.4 mm is 18% bigger, while the humerus of 405 mm is only near 3% bigger. In theory, this means that the specimen represented by the skull is bigger than the specimen represented by the humerus, assuming equal proportions and using the specimen "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46" as a surrogate.

(05-17-2022, 08:59 PM)LonePredator Wrote: That specimen with 408cm skull was the one which was considered the heaviest Populator specimen, am I correct? Wasn’t his weight estimated at just over 400kg?

So with what we have, is that 400kg weight the highest estimated weight for Smilodon Populator till now? Or is there any heavier estimated specimen?

(05-17-2022, 09:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-17-2022, 08:59 PM)LonePredator Wrote: That specimen with 408cm skull was the one which was considered the heaviest Populator specimen, am I correct? Wasn’t his weight estimated at just over 400kg?

So with what we have, is that 400kg weight the highest estimated weight for Smilodon Populator till now? Or is there any heavier estimated specimen?

In fact, no weight estimation exist for the skull of 408 mm at this moment. The large skull from Uruguay MNHN-P 957 is the one that was estimated at 436 kg with a GSL of 392 mm, so "Smilodon bonaërensis 10-1" was probably bigger and heavier.

About the estimations, it depends of the formula and method, as the biggest estimation at this moment is of 517 kg (check one of the previous images that I posted for details), but if we use only the information from Christiansen & Harris (2005) the heaviest one used by them is of 358.4 kg "weighted" and came from specimen MLP10-13 (Humerus of 387.5 mm), but the authors stated that bigger specimens, like the one in Paris were heavier and could reach 400 kg. Now we can see that even "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46" had a bigger humerus than MLP10-13, which suggest a bigger body mass, and as MNHN-P 957 and "Smilodon bonaërensis 10-1" are even bigger than both of them, the figure or 400 kg could be clearly surpassed by the biggest specimens of Smilodon populator.


By the way, I tried to search information about the specimen in Paris, but sadly I could not found anything, yet......

(05-17-2022, 08:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-17-2022, 07:36 AM)jrocks Wrote: wow that document with bonaerensis 10-1 was made all the way back in 1933. Which specimen do you think was bigger, the 16.07 inch skull or the 405 mm humerus

In order to know that we will need an skeleton with associated elements, like "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46", the only associated specimen of Smilodon populator that I know (skull included).

The skull length of that specimen is of 345.7 mm and the humerus is of 395 mm. In this case, the skull of 408.4 mm is 18% bigger, while the humerus of 405 mm is only near 3% bigger. In theory, this means that the specimen represented by the skull is bigger than the specimen represented by the humerus, assuming equal proportions and using the specimen "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46" as a surrogate.

(05-17-2022, 10:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(05-17-2022, 09:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-17-2022, 08:59 PM)LonePredator Wrote: That specimen with 408cm skull was the one which was considered the heaviest Populator specimen, am I correct? Wasn’t his weight estimated at just over 400kg?

So with what we have, is that 400kg weight the highest estimated weight for Smilodon Populator till now? Or is there any heavier estimated specimen?

In fact, no weight estimation exist for the skull of 408 mm at this moment. The large skull from Uruguay MNHN-P 957 is the one that was estimated at 436 kg with a GSL of 392 mm, so "Smilodon bonaërensis 10-1" was probably bigger and heavier.

About the estimations, it depends of the formula and method, as the biggest estimation at this moment is of 517 kg (check one of the previous images that I posted for details), but if we use only the information from Christiansen & Harris (2005) the heaviest one used by them is of 358.4 kg "weighted" and came from specimen MLP10-13 (Humerus of 387.5 mm), but the authors stated that bigger specimens, like the one in Paris were heavier and could reach 400 kg. Now we can see that even "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46" had a bigger humerus than MLP10-13, which suggest a bigger body mass, and as MNHN-P 957 and "Smilodon bonaërensis 10-1" are even bigger than both of them, the figure or 400 kg could be clearly surpassed by the biggest specimens of Smilodon populator.


By the way, I tried to search information about the specimen in Paris, but sadly I could not found anything, yet......

Yes, the 517kg weight must be treated with extreme caution because estimating the weight of Smilodon Populator is no easy task, we have no living animal which has the same or similar proportions as Smilodon Populators unlike in the case of prehistoric Lions and Tigers which are much more easier to estimate as animals with similar or almost same proportions as them still exist.

Now for this reason, the method used would make or break the whole estimation. And since the method of Christiansen and Harris (2005) is considered the most reliable, we could have used their 358.4kg specimen as surrogate to make a rough isometric estimation for these specimens but the problem is that the 358.4kg specimen was based on the humerus so isometric scaling can only be done on another humerus.

Unfortunately we only have skulls on our hands and it would not be possible to estimate their weight unless we get our hands on the original method of Christiansen and Harris and see how it works and how it could apply in this case if it really can.