(02-04-2022, 03:56 PM)Amphi Wrote: @acutidens150 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Panthera-spelaea-intermedia-Igue-des-Rameaux-lower-teeth_tbl2_323936529

(02-12-2022, 05:12 PM)Amphi Wrote: Hello, I have some questions for @GuateGojira  @tigerluver 
•The skull of the natodomeri lion is 460mm? and exactly how big is this individual with a 460mm skull?
• Is the cave lion species Panthera spelaea intermedia with a 475mm long skull? and I found this fossil to be 395-400kg, do you think this estimate is correct?

---

(01-22-2022, 08:41 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: I've come to know of "Panthera spelaea intermedia"; is this a confirmed subspecies?

(02-13-2022, 02:23 AM)Amphi Wrote: The size of the 475mm long skull in a discord group I entered

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(02-13-2022, 02:23 AM)Amphi Wrote: The size of the 475mm long skull in a discord group I entered

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(03-14-2019, 08:37 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(03-14-2019, 05:46 AM)tigerluver Wrote: With the chart of the M1 length of the lions of Imani cave, we may be able to estimate the length of this mandible:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The largest M1 from the following chart is 33.4 mm:

*This image is copyright of its original author

From the photo, the mandible length to M1 length ratio is just about 9. If we assume that mandible is the owner of the largest M1 from the above chart, it would measure about 300 mm as is. The complete mandible (incisors to condyloid process) is about 5% more so if complete it would have measured about 315 mm. The M1 length of 33.4 mm is also comparable to the 309.5 mm (M1 33.4 mm, GSL 458 mm) and 318 mm (M1 33.9 mm 467.5 mm) P. atrox specimens. The other teeth grouped by the authors to be male should also be from mandibles no less than 280 mm.

The faunal level of these specimens was dated to the middle of the Late Pleistocene, so at least by temporal classification, these would be considered P. spelaea. A morphological analysis would help to classify these specimens with greater confidence. Assuming these are what is considered P. spelaea, there is no reason to believe that the P. atrox of Rancho La Brea were any larger. Remember, like in modern big cats, there are clinal variations in size. The P. spelaea that were historically considered to be not as large may have simply represented a smaller sized clinal variation. 

Even in Europe, specimens comparable to the biggest of the P. atrox existed. From Alan Stout, here is a specimen a bit shorter than 300 mm from Romania (link):

*This image is copyright of its original author

All in all, post-cranial remains are skewed toward certain populations, perhaps falsely giving the perception of smaller size in P. spelaea. Perhaps the species underwent fluctuations in size through time as well.

Is there any contemporary fossil nearby that has been documented to be larger than the giant 475 mm skull from Mokhnevskaya cave?

Compared to the giant humerus of Panthera fossilis from Central Europe to the giant tiger mandible, which specimen got an upper hand?

(06-10-2022, 08:52 AM)jrocks Wrote:

(03-14-2019, 08:37 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(03-14-2019, 05:46 AM)tigerluver Wrote: With the chart of the M1 length of the lions of Imani cave, we may be able to estimate the length of this mandible:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The largest M1 from the following chart is 33.4 mm:

*This image is copyright of its original author

From the photo, the mandible length to M1 length ratio is just about 9. If we assume that mandible is the owner of the largest M1 from the above chart, it would measure about 300 mm as is. The complete mandible (incisors to condyloid process) is about 5% more so if complete it would have measured about 315 mm. The M1 length of 33.4 mm is also comparable to the 309.5 mm (M1 33.4 mm, GSL 458 mm) and 318 mm (M1 33.9 mm 467.5 mm) P. atrox specimens. The other teeth grouped by the authors to be male should also be from mandibles no less than 280 mm.

The faunal level of these specimens was dated to the middle of the Late Pleistocene, so at least by temporal classification, these would be considered P. spelaea. A morphological analysis would help to classify these specimens with greater confidence. Assuming these are what is considered P. spelaea, there is no reason to believe that the P. atrox of Rancho La Brea were any larger. Remember, like in modern big cats, there are clinal variations in size. The P. spelaea that were historically considered to be not as large may have simply represented a smaller sized clinal variation. 

Even in Europe, specimens comparable to the biggest of the P. atrox existed. From Alan Stout, here is a specimen a bit shorter than 300 mm from Romania (link):

*This image is copyright of its original author

All in all, post-cranial remains are skewed toward certain populations, perhaps falsely giving the perception of smaller size in P. spelaea. Perhaps the species underwent fluctuations in size through time as well.

Is there any contemporary fossil nearby that has been documented to be larger than the giant 475 mm skull from Mokhnevskaya cave?

Compared to the giant humerus of Panthera fossilis from Central Europe to the giant tiger mandible, which specimen got an upper hand?

same i was also curious about that in the freak felids thread, i wonder if theres been any cave lion fossils that have been documented to be bigger than that 475 mm skull