(10-16-2020, 10:59 PM)KRA123 Wrote: I'm sure were all aware that the largest American Lions were absolute giants, but how large were typical sized specimens? Has any kind of average been calculated?

(01-19-2022, 04:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: I don't think it was any of these animals. Pretty sure it was the unnamed Tiger from Borneo which lived during the Pleistocene. It's estimated size according to the peer reviewed paper (Sherani, 2019) was 480±60 kg so it was at least 420kg but it could have been much heavier as well.

So it rivals and even most likely surpasses the Smilodon Populator but among all animals in this list, it's the Smilodon Populator (most likely) or the Ngandong Tiger

(01-21-2022, 04:48 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(01-19-2022, 04:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: I don't think it was any of these animals. Pretty sure it was the unnamed Tiger from Borneo which lived during the Pleistocene. It's estimated size according to the peer reviewed paper (Sherani, 2019) was 480±60 kg so it was at least 420kg but it could have been much heavier as well.

So it rivals and even most likely surpasses the Smilodon Populator but among all animals in this list, it's the Smilodon Populator (most likely) or the Ngandong Tiger

The giant Bornean tiger belonged to the southern clade of the mainland Pleistocene tiger.

Their northern counterparts were also super massive, but we just don't know the exact size of these fossils.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(01-21-2022, 10:33 AM)LonePredator Wrote: I like to think that these collosal beasts would have preyed on large pachyderms or just very large sized prey in general because that is what would have caused them to grow to such an enormous size.

(01-21-2022, 10:33 AM)LonePredator Wrote: especially their ability to stand on their two hindlimbs like bears which is unique to Tigers among all the large sized cats.

(01-21-2022, 03:46 PM)LandSeaLion Wrote: I don't think it's possible to know what the largest ever historic cat was, given the massive amounts of uncertainty involved. It's fun to speculate though.

(01-21-2022, 10:33 AM)LonePredator Wrote: I like to think that these collosal beasts would have preyed on large pachyderms or just very large sized prey in general because that is what would have caused them to grow to such an enormous size.

It wouldn't surprise me. 400+ kg cats would have had to have preyed on very large animals indeed to sustain such a large mass.

(01-21-2022, 10:33 AM)LonePredator Wrote: especially their ability to stand on their two hindlimbs like bears which is unique to Tigers among all the large sized cats.

Unrelated to the main topic, but this certainly isn't unique to tigers. Here's a leopard demonstrating the same ability (a mother searching for her lost cub):

(01-21-2022, 04:29 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: What are the skull GSL of Ngandong tiger & Giant Borneo tiger? If there are any found.

(01-21-2022, 10:33 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(01-21-2022, 04:48 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(01-19-2022, 04:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: I don't think it was any of these animals. Pretty sure it was the unnamed Tiger from Borneo which lived during the Pleistocene. It's estimated size according to the peer reviewed paper (Sherani, 2019) was 480±60 kg so it was at least 420kg but it could have been much heavier as well.

So it rivals and even most likely surpasses the Smilodon Populator but among all animals in this list, it's the Smilodon Populator (most likely) or the Ngandong Tiger

The giant Bornean tiger belonged to the southern clade of the mainland Pleistocene tiger.

Their northern counterparts were also super massive, but we just don't know the exact size of these fossils.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So we only know about the Southern population? So in theory if the prey density was high and there were large sized prey in the north as well then the Northern Population could have been a little bigger in size, right??


I like to think that these collosal beasts would have preyed on large pachyderms or just very large sized prey in general because that is what would have caused them to grow to such an enormous size.


But wouldn't this enormous size slow them down? As in wouldn't they have been a lot less agile? It's hard to imagine a Tiger without it's agility and explosiveness and especially their unique ability to stand on their two hindlimbs like bears which Tigers are still able to do despite their huge size


What do you think??

(01-21-2022, 08:40 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(01-21-2022, 04:29 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: What are the skull GSL of Ngandong tiger & Giant Borneo tiger? If there are any found.

There are several single bones from the Ngandong tiger, most of them dentition, but we have large bones: 1 skull, 1 femur, 2 humerus and 1 mandible. All of them are from different animals and also from different locations.

About the skull, the only complete skull found was a very large one but on the line with the biggest modern Bengal/Amur tigers. The real GSL was of 373 mm (end broken), a Basal length of 318 mm and a zygomatic wide of 240 cm (one side is slightly deformed). Using modern Java tigers, which are almoust identical, but a bit wider in the zygomatic wide, we got a GSL of c.386 mm and a CBL of c.340 mm. The zygomatic wide was probably about 250 mm with no deformation. Take in count that the mandible from Watualang probably had a related skull of c.393 mm and the specimen of the femur (480 mm) was even bigger.

About the Pleistocene Borneo tiger, it is very difficult as the mandible in incomplete in more than 50% and its full reconstruction may vary depending of the surrogate mandible that we want to use. However, it is sure that the skull of that specimen is bigger than any skull reported or estimated from any Ngandong tiger at this moment.

This is the image of the skull from Ngandong and the mandible from Watualang. They are not asociated even when they put it together in this picture.

*This image is copyright of its original author

All the Ngandong tiger fossils are currently housed in the Bandung Geological Museum from Java. Here is a picture with the skull (at the bottom center) with the mandible and other fossils from the area.

*This image is copyright of its original author

(01-21-2022, 08:40 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(01-21-2022, 04:29 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: What are the skull GSL of Ngandong tiger & Giant Borneo tiger? If there are any found.

There are several single bones from the Ngandong tiger, most of them dentition, but we have large bones: 1 skull, 1 femur, 2 humerus and 1 mandible. All of them are from different animals and also from different locations.

About the skull, the only complete skull found was a very large one but on the line with the biggest modern Bengal/Amur tigers. The real GSL was of 373 mm (end broken), a Basal length of 318 mm and a zygomatic wide of 240 cm (one side is slightly deformed). Using modern Java tigers, which are almoust identical, but a bit wider in the zygomatic wide, we got a GSL of c.386 mm and a CBL of c.340 mm. The zygomatic wide was probably about 250 mm with no deformation. Take in count that the mandible from Watualang probably had a related skull of c.393 mm and the specimen of the femur (480 mm) was even bigger.

About the Pleistocene Borneo tiger, it is very difficult as the mandible in incomplete in more than 50% and its full reconstruction may vary depending of the surrogate mandible that we want to use. However, it is sure that the skull of that specimen is bigger than any skull reported or estimated from any Ngandong tiger at this moment.

This is the image of the skull from Ngandong and the mandible from Watualang. They are not asociated even when they put it together in this picture.

*This image is copyright of its original author

All the Ngandong tiger fossils are currently housed in the Bandung Geological Museum from Java. Here is a picture with the skull (at the bottom center) with the mandible and other fossils from the area.

*This image is copyright of its original author

(01-22-2022, 01:31 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: I don't think the skull of c.386 mm GSL belongs to an adult male, could it be a young male or an adult female? Because Ngandong tigers were massive.

(01-21-2022, 03:46 PM)LandSeaLion Wrote: I don't think it's possible to know what the largest ever historic cat was, given the massive amounts of uncertainty involved. It's fun to speculate though.

(01-23-2022, 02:35 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(01-21-2022, 03:46 PM)LandSeaLion Wrote: I don't think it's possible to know what the largest ever historic cat was, given the massive amounts of uncertainty involved. It's fun to speculate though.

We are quite certain that the largest Machairodontinae and the largest Pleistocene lion/tiger were in the same league.

And the modern iteration of this rivalry is between the modern lion and modern tiger who are both the successors of the largest Pleistocene felines.

(01-22-2022, 09:04 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(01-22-2022, 01:31 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: I don't think the skull of c.386 mm GSL belongs to an adult male, could it be a young male or an adult female? Because Ngandong tigers were massive.

The people that studied the skull do not mention if the sutures in the skull were still open or fully close, as far I know. However, from the picture we can see that there are not sutures open, so this was probably an adult already. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

However, remember that the posibility that a true giant get fossilized is very small, probably all the specimens found are around the area of the average sized specimens, and that skull could be in the lower range. Check for example that Bengal tigers are big, but the smaller skulls from adult males are as small as 329 mm. So in a population you will found small adults and big adults and of course the regular ones that are the most common in the population.