+- 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: Smilodon populator (/topic-smilodon-populator)
RE: Smilodon populator - genao87 - 03-29-2022
(01-14-2022, 06:27 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Hi @jrocks, sorry for the delay. 250 kg to 300 kg for males, depending on the climate at that point is probably fair.
that is how much it truly weigh?? i thought it was much more than that.....the average. i mean that is not much more than todays Tigers. so the Bornean Tiger grew the largest then? since the estimates are insane so far
RE: Smilodon populator - GuateGojira - 03-30-2022
(03-29-2022, 11:08 PM)genao87 Wrote: that is how much it truly weigh?? i thought it was much more than that.....the average. i mean that is not much more than todays Tigers. so the Bornean Tiger grew the largest then? since the estimates are insane so far
You need to see the entire context of the figures. Check this:
Average lion - Panthera leo: 194 kg (South Africa, by me)
Average tiger - Panthera tigris: 201 kg (Indian subcontinent, by me)
Average Panthera atrox: 256 kg (Christiansen & Harris, 2009)
Average Smilodon populator: 304 kg (Prevosti & Vizcaino, 2006)
All these values are for males only, although we need to know that in the values of Smilodon are included all the specimens, which certainly included females, so for "males only" will be a higher value. Also it did not include the estimate for the new specimen MNHN-P 957 which represent a huge specimen.
RE: Smilodon populator - genao87 - 03-30-2022
(03-30-2022, 04:28 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-29-2022, 11:08 PM)genao87 Wrote: that is how much it truly weigh?? i thought it was much more than that.....the average. i mean that is not much more than todays Tigers. so the Bornean Tiger grew the largest then? since the estimates are insane so far
You need to see the entire context of the figures. Check this:
Average lion - Panthera leo: 194 kg (South Africa, by me)
Average tiger - Panthera tigris: 201 kg (Indian subcontinent, by me)
Average Panthera atrox: 256 kg (Christiansen & Harris, 2009)
Average Smilodon populator: 304 kg (Prevosti & Vizcaino, 2006)
All these values are for males only, although we need to know that in the values of Smilodon are included all the specimens, which certainly included females, so for "males only" will be a higher value. Also it did not include the estimate for the new specimen MNHN-P 957 which represent a huge specimen.
MNHN-P 957, is that the skull found Uruguay?? reading about it, it mentioned the size of this specimen is around 436kg. I thought for sure S. Populator was around 400kg on average. The averages that you posted are much lower than I expected.
https://www.mna.gub.uy/innovaportal/file/125214/1/2020-manzuetti-et-al.-2020.pdf
RE: Smilodon populator - GuateGojira - 03-31-2022
(03-30-2022, 07:11 PM)genao87 Wrote: MNHN-P 957, is that the skull found Uruguay?? reading about it, it mentioned the size of this specimen is around 436kg. I thought for sure S. Populator was around 400kg on average. The averages that you posted are much lower than I expected.
https://www.mna.gub.uy/innovaportal/file....-2020.pdf
Yes, that is the specimen from Uruguay.
In fact, Smilodon populator certainly weighed up to 400 kg and in some cases more than that. But that is an extreme weight, not an average weight. Average body mass is lower than the maximum and if we compare it with the other average figures from the other cats, Smilodon populator is bigger than all of them.
RE: Smilodon populator - tigerluver - 03-31-2022
(03-29-2022, 11:08 PM)genao87 Wrote:(01-14-2022, 06:27 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Hi @jrocks, sorry for the delay. 250 kg to 300 kg for males, depending on the climate at that point is probably fair.
that is how much it truly weigh?? i thought it was much more than that.....the average. i mean that is not much more than todays Tigers. so the Bornean Tiger grew the largest then? since the estimates are insane so far
A 400 kg average with the current sample is probably unlikely. It seems fossil cats have a great size range than extant populations, probably because their population and genetic diversity were better at the time.
Yes, MNHN-P957 is the Uruguay skull but Mendez-Alzola reported an ever larger skull of length 408.4 mm. The equation used to estimate the weight of the Uruguay skull is not a good predictor however based on body mapping/GDI 400+ kg is still probably right for it.
Off the top of my head, I don't remember Prevosti and Vizcaino (2006) detailing their sample. They did use the "weighted estimates" which might cause some overestimation.
Smilodon is not mapped like extant Panthera and therefore these equations are limited. The animal is proportionately taller dorsoventrally and shorter anteroposteriorly. It is also lateromedially deeper. It has a small head (therefore skull-based estimates will underestimate) but disproportionate forelimb and hindlimbs (therefore regression equations don't apply exactly when based off modern cats). There is more in the works regarding the topic.
RE: Smilodon populator - GuateGojira - 03-31-2022
(03-31-2022, 10:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Off the top of my head, I don't remember Prevosti and Vizcaino (2006) detailing their sample. They did use the "weighted estimates" which might cause some overestimation.
This is what they say:
*This image is copyright of its original author
So they include all the calculations of that document, males and females together, I guess.
RE: Smilodon populator - GuateGojira - 03-31-2022
(03-31-2022, 10:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Mendez-Alzola reported an ever larger skull of length 408.4 mm.
Is a mystery for my why this skull is ignored by many people. This specimen is bigger than the one from Uruguay but is not quoted in any other document.
So based in your appreciation, which I also share, Smilodon had an smaller head in relation with its body, which shows that the application of the formulas like that of Van Valkerburg (1990), which is the one used in the document of Manzuetti et al. (2020), will produce incorrect values. Is the same that using it with the skulls of lions and tigers, which do not have the same relation of skull and body.
RE: Smilodon populator - AndresVida - 04-01-2022
(03-30-2022, 07:11 PM)genao87 Wrote: I thought for sure S. Populator was around 400kg on average.A big cat species averaging 400 kgs would be a world record even if in historical times with thw largest specimens probably surpassing 500 kgs, but unfortunately no discovered species does average that much.
I get where you're coming from though, the "average of 400 kg" was actually referred to the estimated body mass of the Uruguayan specimen that was given a range of 379 - 436 kg, averaging about 407 kg.
That's what we mean when we refer to the estimated mass range of an animal.
RE: Smilodon populator - AndresVida - 04-01-2022
(03-31-2022, 10:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Yes, MNHN-P957 is the Uruguay skull but Mendez-Alzola reported an ever larger skull of length 408.4 mm. The equation used to estimate the weight of the Uruguay skull is not a good predictor however based on body mapping/GDI 400+ kg is still probably right for it.I wonder if this skull will get any confirmation in the upcoming future, however I guess that isometric scaling for other specimens can lead us to create a model with proportions based on known specimens and see what the GDI gives us as final value
RE: Smilodon populator - jrocks - 04-01-2022
(03-31-2022, 08:06 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-31-2022, 10:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Mendez-Alzola reported an ever larger skull of length 408.4 mm.
Is a mystery for my why this skull is ignored by many people. This specimen is bigger than the one from Uruguay but is not quoted in any other document.
So based in your appreciation, which I also share, Smilodon had an smaller head in relation with its body, which shows that the application of the formulas like that of Van Valkerburg (1990), which is the one used in the document of Manzuetti et al. (2020), will produce incorrect values. Is the same that using it with the skulls of lions and tigers, which do not have the same relation of skull and body.
hi, i read somewhere although i cant find it that there were injuries on the 392 mm populator skull and based off the shape of the injuries they may have been caused by the sabers of another smilodon, is that true?
RE: Smilodon populator - tigerluver - 04-01-2022
(04-01-2022, 08:49 AM)jrocks Wrote:(03-31-2022, 08:06 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-31-2022, 10:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Mendez-Alzola reported an ever larger skull of length 408.4 mm.
Is a mystery for my why this skull is ignored by many people. This specimen is bigger than the one from Uruguay but is not quoted in any other document.
So based in your appreciation, which I also share, Smilodon had an smaller head in relation with its body, which shows that the application of the formulas like that of Van Valkerburg (1990), which is the one used in the document of Manzuetti et al. (2020), will produce incorrect values. Is the same that using it with the skulls of lions and tigers, which do not have the same relation of skull and body.
hi, i read somewhere although i cant find it that there were injuries on the 392 mm populator skull and based off the shape of the injuries they may have been caused by the sabers of another smilodon, is that true?
The theory is based on the injuries in this article.
Accordingly, Manzuetti et al. hypothesize that:
"In this way, the opening observed in the frontonasal region of the skull resemble to those described by Chimento et al. (2019; see also Anton, 2013 and references therein), thus could be tentatively assigned to signs of attack by another Smilodon individual as a result of an intraspecific agonistic interaction. So, the impact of this large-bodied predator on the late Pleistocene fauna is not yet be fully understood."
RE: Smilodon populator - Jerricson - 04-01-2022
(03-30-2022, 04:28 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-29-2022, 11:08 PM)genao87 Wrote: that is how much it truly weigh?? i thought it was much more than that.....the average. i mean that is not much more than todays Tigers. so the Bornean Tiger grew the largest then? since the estimates are insane so far
You need to see the entire context of the figures. Check this:
Average lion - Panthera leo: 194 kg (South Africa, by me)
Average tiger - Panthera tigris: 201 kg (Indian subcontinent, by me)
Average Panthera atrox: 256 kg (Christiansen & Harris, 2009)
Average Smilodon populator: 304 kg (Prevosti & Vizcaino, 2006)
All these values are for males only, although we need to know that in the values of Smilodon are included all the specimens, which certainly included females, so for "males only" will be a higher value. Also it did not include the estimate for the new specimen MNHN-P 957 which represent a huge specimen.
If i recall properly, in ur previous weight table, avg south african lion was 191kg. So did u update ur weight tables?? If so ,can u share it? It will be helpful
RE: Smilodon populator - genao87 - 04-01-2022
(04-01-2022, 03:07 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:(03-30-2022, 07:11 PM)genao87 Wrote: I thought for sure S. Populator was around 400kg on average.A big cat species averaging 400 kgs would be a world record even if in historical times with thw largest specimens probably surpassing 500 kgs, but unfortunately no discovered species does average that much.
I get where you're coming from though, the "average of 400 kg" was actually referred to the estimated body mass of the Uruguayan specimen that was given a range of 379 - 436 kg, averaging about 407 kg.
That's what we mean when we refer to the estimated mass range of an animal.
I guess so, just reading some of the high end numbers gave me feeling that 400kg was a good estimate at least due to its robustness, not 300kg. I am assuming that the Uruguay specimen and the other large Smilidon P. might of looked like this as a size comparison.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Smilodon populator - GuateGojira - 04-01-2022
(04-01-2022, 10:07 AM)Jerricson Wrote: If i recall properly, in ur previous weight table, avg south african lion was 191kg. So did u update ur weight tables?? If so ,can u share it? It will be helpful
Yes, updated.
RE: Smilodon populator - genao87 - 04-01-2022
(04-01-2022, 08:25 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-01-2022, 10:07 AM)Jerricson Wrote: If i recall properly, in ur previous weight table, avg south african lion was 191kg. So did u update ur weight tables?? If so ,can u share it? It will be helpful
Yes, updated.
do you have a table or images of the different sizes of Saber Tooth cats like you did with Tigers?