+- 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)
RE: Cave lion cub - GuateGojira - 09-08-2016
(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.
With all respect, but your answer has no scientific base, it is just an opinion from someone that simply don't understand the Evolution. We have good evidence to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the great cats, and the new genetic studies present even more tools to estimate the times of the arise of these animals. You should know that all the species have links with they relatives, that cats simply don't pop up from nothing, they have a complex and very interesting evolutive history.
Your mentions of religion, chi power and levitation, show that you are not a scientific person, and I think you would be more interesting in topics like "Dragon Ball" than the evolution of great cats, or studies of ancient DNA.
Finally, the goal of this forum is the present scientific evidence, studies from Scientists and naturalists and that type of reliable data. If you can measure the "chi power", or if you can quantify the number of levitations of humans with reliable samples, in other words, if you can PROVE with scientific studies that this modern "myths" are real, then it will be welcomed, but for the moment, this has no relation with the evolution of the great cats, and are not a proper defense against the new study of Dr Barnett and his team, which finally proved that the Cave "lions" were a different species and related with the lion clade.
RE: Cave lion cub - GuateGojira - 09-08-2016
(09-07-2016, 09:00 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: 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
I was quoting from memory, this is more like the date for leopards, I guess, but it is true that jaguars diverged from lion-leopard group long before the split of these two. It seems they split at about the same time than the cave "lions".
I forgotten something. Check that the cave "lion" cub lacks the spots of the modern lion cubs, proving that this species evolved from pure non-spotted cats, while the modern lion evolved from leopard-like animals that adapted to the savanna habitat.
RE: Cave lion cub - Blackleopard - 09-08-2016
Ok, but you're saying lions evolved from leopards, just a question, how far back will you go, what did leopards evolve from, and then what did that cat evolve from, at what point does the cat not become a cat anymore? You catch my drift, at some point there is so many species, yes with similar parts and dna, but far to different and individual in design. At some point, something supernatural is going to have to take place to propel such a force as evolution, an evolving force that grows and actual forms millions of life forms, and thousands of different species from virtually nothing. If everything has grown, evolved, but never was, then that means even plant life is related to Bigcats at some point. Which is impossible.
RE: Cave lion cub - GrizzlyClaws - 09-09-2016
(09-08-2016, 11:19 AM)Blackleopard Wrote: Ok, but you're saying lions evolved from leopards, just a question, how far back will you go, what did leopards evolve from, and then what did that cat evolve from, at what point does the cat not become a cat anymore? You catch my drift, at some point there is so many species, yes with similar parts and dna, but far to different and individual in design. At some point, something supernatural is going to have to take place to propel such a force as evolution, an evolving force that grows and actual forms millions of life forms, and thousands of different species from virtually nothing. If everything has grown, evolved, but never was, then that means even plant life is related to Bigcats at some point. Which is impossible.
Guate didn't suggest that lion evolved from leopard, but from a leopard-like feline. Just read his post carefully.
Now there is no question that the Cave lion was not conspecific with the African lion. The only remaining question is; were they a different species of lion or a different species of non-lion feline?
RE: Cave lion cub - GuateGojira - 09-09-2016
@
@GrizzlyClaws, the answer to your question is in this new paper, this is not a lion at all, but a species of its own, like the jaguar or the leopard, but like them, part of the lion clade. It evolved about the same time than the first jaguars, so is possible that these great cats have even different coat patters, like some cave paints that show some soft stripe and spot patters in the back of this cave "lions".
RE: Cave lion cub - Kingtheropod - 09-09-2016
After seeing pictures of the new cub, it appears that the coat colouring of the cave lion is similar to modern lions.
*This image is copyright of its original author
BTW, good to be back. Hope to post more often. I have some unfinished work to do!
RE: Cave lion cub - GuateGojira - 09-09-2016
This time, I am not agree. Check that this cub don't have any spot pattern like the modern lion cubs, nor even faint. Also, the hair recovered from and adult specimen in Russia show a reddish to ocher color. This could suggest a little change of colors from cub to adulthood, different from the spots to simple color of the lions.
Check this reconstruction:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It looks more like a bear-cat than like a lion.
RE: Cave lion cub - Kingtheropod - 09-09-2016
Yes, it is kind of a light brown colour. Somewhere between a Grizzly and a lion coat.
RE: Cave lion cub - GrizzlyClaws - 09-09-2016
(09-09-2016, 07:42 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: This time, I am not agree. Check that this cub don't have any spot pattern like the modern lion cubs, nor even faint. Also, the hair recovered from and adult specimen in Russia show a reddish to ocher color. This could suggest a little change of colors from cub to adulthood, different from the spots to simple color of the lions.
Check this reconstruction:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It looks more like a bear-cat than like a lion.
They did have broad muzzle like tiger.
RE: Cave lion cub - brotherbear - 09-09-2016
(09-09-2016, 07:58 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote: Yes, it is kind of a light brown colour. Somewhere between a Grizzly and a lion coat.
I remember reading about the woolly mammoths found frozen in Siberia. For years, the mammoth was thought to have been a reddish brown color because of those findings. Then it was discovered that the hair color changes with time being frozen and that the woolly mammoths were actually black.
RE: Cave lion cub - Polar - 09-09-2016
(09-09-2016, 07:42 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: This time, I am not agree. Check that this cub don't have any spot pattern like the modern lion cubs, nor even faint. Also, the hair recovered from and adult specimen in Russia show a reddish to ocher color. This could suggest a little change of colors from cub to adulthood, different from the spots to simple color of the lions.
Check this reconstruction:
*This image is copyright of its original author
It looks more like a bear-cat than like a lion.
Looks a lot like Homotherium.
RE: Cave lion cub - Blackleopard - 09-09-2016
Yeah but with taxidermy animals can look quite a lot different then they'd look in real life, generally a lot of shape can be lost and structure in the face. I don't think it looks like a bear, the body is some what lion like or hyena.
The baby lion does have some of the lighter brown color you'd attribute to lions.
And if the lion isn't decedents of the actual cave lions then what about the cave lions drawings in France, are those related, or are those just depictions of lioness's hunting, perhaps the male lion was not seen hunting, and the artist depicted the lioness's as so often seen doing the hunting.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Cave lion cub - tigerluver - 09-09-2016
Not sure what the painting was depicting, but Bocherens et al. (2011) found that P. spelaea was in all likelihood, solitary or at best, lived in pairs. The prey target was too small for a pride lifestyle.
They didn't have manes either it seems. Perhaps extra hair, but not the glorious mane we know and love today. See this cave painting:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The male is in the back, presumably next to a female.
In another, there is something around the lower neck (toward the right from Chauvet):
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Cave lion cub - Blackleopard - 09-10-2016
There would have to be more cave paintings available in that area, lioness's are very active in groups, in that particular instance, the painter may have just captured more of the lioness's as they're higher in number and more easily visible... and perhaps some sub adult males without fully formed manes yet. Because there are sculptures showing lions with manes, even belly manes 860 BC in Assyria.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I realize this is thousands before that, but still like you're saying the mane hair is detectable.
In the lion below, there looks to be clear white scrape marks, the artist trying to indicate mane hair hanging from the lions throat area.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I do think its pretty clear in lion in the upper left that a layer of fur is over the shoulder area and coming down.
And then the lion on the far right clearly has a hung of fur hanging off the shoulder, this has to be some form of mane.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Cave lion cub - GuateGojira - 09-10-2016
Check the first picture of @tigerluver, it clearly shows a male without a mane. In fact, is an accepted fact that the cave lions do not had manes at all (Yamaguchi et al., 2004).
About the group hunting lions, there is great doubt about if the picture shows an actual hunt, or just a religious point of view, or vision, of these animals, after all, it is the only one depicted in group. It was stated that the cave "lions" hunted reindeer, horses and other type of animals and did not needed to hunt in groups.
There are several facts that are unknown by most of the people, primary because the popular books do not take in count the new findings. Even the name "cave lion" is incorrect, as Dr Diedrich stated many times that these great cats do no lived in caves, but in the savanna like habitat, so he call them the "steppe lion", which is correct.
Also, check that the image of Vogelherd shows spots and faint stripes.
The images of Persian lions are NOT comparable with those of the cave "lions", they are not even the same species, and are thousands of years of difference, made by modern humans. They are clearly manned modern lions.