(11-26-2018, 08:46 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 04:41 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 04:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 01:17 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-22-2018, 09:21 AM)johnny rex Wrote:

(11-21-2018, 09:16 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Based on the femur length to skull ratios of extant tigers, I would say the Padang specimen. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

The average femur length (FL)/condylobasal length (CBL) from the above is 1.23. If we use the lower 426 mm CBL value from post #989 we'd get a femur length of 523 mm. Now the more exceptional a skull, the more we have to think about the possibility of the FL/CBL ratio being closer to 1 rather than what is in extant tigers. Even then, 490-500 mm femur would be in the realm of possibility, thus outsizing the Ngandong femur no matter which way one looks at it.

I see, what do you think of WaveRider's previous statement on the largest skull of prehistoric Panthera leo? He stated "I estimate the equivalent greatest length of skull of the largest Panthera (leo) spelaea individuals unearthed to date I am aware likely at around 500 mm and possibly even 510 mm for a couple of them, therefore approaching the size of the largest Panthera (leo) fossilis specimen known to date (the 192 mm MT3 individual from Chateau) for which I currently estimate with some necessary caution given the extreme size of this metapodial and the kind of bone it is a likely equivalent greatest length of skull in the region of 520 mm (most likely range 500-535 mm and with a 95% Confidence Interval even clearly higher then that).



WaveRiders"

Thoughts?

Dunno, but sound quite dubious to me that Cave lion's skull to rival the largest Cave bear and SF bear.

Also, WaveRiders seemed to refuse to share any of his share of information with us.

I discussed that metapodial in the cave lion thread recently. It is certainly gigantic. The main debatable point is proportions. Extrapolations from one bone to another, especially between different species, comes with a bag of salt. That's why I try to avoid the topic as much as possible. The rest as @GrizzlyClaws stated, we can't say anything as there's no record of them in any form. Dr. Marciszak knows the history of the cave lions' remains inside out and he's yet to make a mention of such.

On that old fragment, there's too much uncertainty in faunal level, range, and morphology. It lies right at the boundary of tiger and cave lion. In post #140 @GuateGojira linked to our old discussions a lifetime ago. The photos unfortunately do not show anymore, but maybe @GuateGojira could repost them if he has them saved somewhere.

I do remember you once stated that the Cromerian lion specimen with the 192 mm MT3 should have a skull in between 450 - 500 mm, but more precisely around the same league with the Chateau giant with 484.7 mm skull. Hence, the largest earlier transitional Panthera spelaea with 475 mm was indeed close to that level as well.

BTW, I think that Waverider has also mixed up the fact that the 192 mm MT3 wasn't from Chateau, but from Central Europe.

500mm skull may belonged to the Panthera (leo) fossil and Panthera (leo) spelaea's population transition? I remember that the 475mm skull also owns some Panthera fossil's characters, basis on these, I just simply analyse whether the supersize Panthera spelaea was the last gigantic Panthera fossil or not? 

BTW, as far as I'm concerned that some of the gigantic Panthera spelaea's specimens also from Central Europe in earlier period,  while in Western Europe, Panthera spelaea's size looks smaller, but on the contrary, Panthera fossil has the largest population at the same region like 484mm skull from France

(11-26-2018, 09:08 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-26-2018, 08:46 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 04:41 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 04:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 01:17 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-22-2018, 09:21 AM)johnny rex Wrote:

(11-21-2018, 09:16 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Based on the femur length to skull ratios of extant tigers, I would say the Padang specimen. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

The average femur length (FL)/condylobasal length (CBL) from the above is 1.23. If we use the lower 426 mm CBL value from post #989 we'd get a femur length of 523 mm. Now the more exceptional a skull, the more we have to think about the possibility of the FL/CBL ratio being closer to 1 rather than what is in extant tigers. Even then, 490-500 mm femur would be in the realm of possibility, thus outsizing the Ngandong femur no matter which way one looks at it.

I see, what do you think of WaveRider's previous statement on the largest skull of prehistoric Panthera leo? He stated "I estimate the equivalent greatest length of skull of the largest Panthera (leo) spelaea individuals unearthed to date I am aware likely at around 500 mm and possibly even 510 mm for a couple of them, therefore approaching the size of the largest Panthera (leo) fossilis specimen known to date (the 192 mm MT3 individual from Chateau) for which I currently estimate with some necessary caution given the extreme size of this metapodial and the kind of bone it is a likely equivalent greatest length of skull in the region of 520 mm (most likely range 500-535 mm and with a 95% Confidence Interval even clearly higher then that).



WaveRiders"

Thoughts?

Dunno, but sound quite dubious to me that Cave lion's skull to rival the largest Cave bear and SF bear.

Also, WaveRiders seemed to refuse to share any of his share of information with us.

I discussed that metapodial in the cave lion thread recently. It is certainly gigantic. The main debatable point is proportions. Extrapolations from one bone to another, especially between different species, comes with a bag of salt. That's why I try to avoid the topic as much as possible. The rest as @GrizzlyClaws stated, we can't say anything as there's no record of them in any form. Dr. Marciszak knows the history of the cave lions' remains inside out and he's yet to make a mention of such.

On that old fragment, there's too much uncertainty in faunal level, range, and morphology. It lies right at the boundary of tiger and cave lion. In post #140 @GuateGojira linked to our old discussions a lifetime ago. The photos unfortunately do not show anymore, but maybe @GuateGojira could repost them if he has them saved somewhere.

I do remember you once stated that the Cromerian lion specimen with the 192 mm MT3 should have a skull in between 450 - 500 mm, but more precisely around the same league with the Chateau giant with 484.7 mm skull. Hence, the largest earlier transitional Panthera spelaea with 475 mm was indeed close to that level as well.

BTW, I think that Waverider has also mixed up the fact that the 192 mm MT3 wasn't from Chateau, but from Central Europe.

500mm skull may belonged to the Panthera (leo) fossil and Panthera (leo) spelaea's population transition? I remember that the 475mm skull also owns some Panthera fossil's characters, basis on these, I just simply analyse whether the supersize Panthera spelaea was the last gigantic Panthera fossil or not? 

BTW, as far as I'm concerned that some of the gigantic Panthera spelaea's specimens also from Central Europe in earlier period,  while in Western Europe, Panthera spelaea's size looks smaller, but on the contrary, Panthera fossil has the largest population at the same region like 484mm skull from France

The 475 mm skull belonged to the earlier Panthera spelaea population with some Panthera fossilis characteristics.

The late Panthera spelaea population got proportionally broader snout, but the maximum size of its skull was only as large as the specimen 2900-3.

(11-26-2018, 10:18 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @Smilodon-Rex

For now, only @tigerluver is the rightful owner of the Padang mandible, and he is the only person who can eloquently interpret everything about this piece of fossil.

I did remember he had discovered that the Padang mandible was characterized by many broad snout features, and it is considerably broader than the specimen 2900-3.

And we are talking about a muzzle width that is potentially over 150 mm.

Quote:Thus, the estimated body mass of this adult male with 390 mm condylobasal length is 301.4 kg. The same estimated average body mass was calculated with data from six specimens of P. atrox (Christiansen and Harris, 2009:943), and the similar average body mass (307.5 kg) was also estimated on the basis of new methodology of Sherani (in press).

(12-02-2018, 07:46 AM)Ghari Sher Wrote: OK, so this is a thread which I haven't looked through very deeply, so maybe someone has mentioned this before and I am not aware, but there is a preliminary publication (NOT peer-reviewed) out by Shaheer Sherani, where he comes up with a mass estimate of 486kg for the largest specimen of P. t. soloensis (not sure if that's even a valid subspecies any longer given the recent tiger lumping but there you go), the notorious 480mm femur.

(12-02-2018, 11:19 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(12-02-2018, 07:46 AM)Ghari Sher Wrote: OK, so this is a thread which I haven't looked through very deeply, so maybe someone has mentioned this before and I am not aware, but there is a preliminary publication (NOT peer-reviewed) out by Shaheer Sherani, where he comes up with a mass estimate of 486kg for the largest specimen of P. t. soloensis (not sure if that's even a valid subspecies any longer given the recent tiger lumping but there you go), the notorious 480mm femur.

I am going to coment only regarding the subspecies issue.

The lumping of the tiger subspecies is only for the modern ones, not the prehistoric, for the moment. The Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) was the last Pleistocene subspecies of tigers in the Sunda shelf and direct decendent of the large mainland tiger Panthera tigris acutidens. In this case the subspecies is still valid, for the moment.

Now, all the tigers that evolved after the Toba eruption (c.75,000 years B.C.) came from a single population that was interconnected until about 12,000 years B.C. when the last ice age ended and the Sunda populations were separated forming the subspecies Panthera tigris sondaica, while the mainland populations were completelly interconnected until the arrival of the humans, some populations been separated only about 100-200 years A. C. like the Caspian/Amur tigers or the India/Sundarbans tigers. The diferences on the mainland tiger subspecies Panthera tigris tigris, both in skull and coat pattersn, are minimal and are only clinal.

(12-02-2018, 07:46 AM)Ghari Sher Wrote: OK, so this is a thread which I haven't looked through very deeply, so maybe someone has mentioned this before and I am not aware, but there is a preliminary publication (NOT peer-reviewed) out by Shaheer Sherani, where he comes up with a mass estimate of 486kg for the largest specimen of P. t. soloensis (not sure if that's even a valid subspecies any longer given the recent tiger lumping but there you go), the notorious 480mm femur.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Any thoughts on the validity of this? I have read a lot of the older threads on Tapatalk and other sites where @GuateGojira , @tigerluver, @GrizzlyClaws and a few other have used equations hitherto published to estimate weights of around 350-400kg for the tiger, I thought that the 450+kg weights were all hyperbole.
The other maximum weights he gives seem to be about right based on what I've seen before in the literature, and from using other equations on the same bones, but it's the tiger which sticks out like a sore thumb here.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sabol (2018) cited Sherani's publication as yielding a similar mass estimate for the large male lion from Medvedia (307.5 kg) as others he had worked out using the condylobasal length (301.4 kg)

Quote:Thus, the estimated body mass of this adult male with 390 mm condylobasal length is 301.4 kg. The same estimated average body mass was calculated with data from six specimens of P. atrox (Christiansen and Harris, 2009:943), and the similar average body mass (307.5 kg) was also estimated on the basis of new methodology of Sherani (in press).

So his mass estimates for the other cats seem to at least carry some validity, but I'm a bit puzzled about the tiger weight:

https://peerj.com/preprints/2327/

(12-02-2018, 11:39 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The Padang specimen was likely lived after the Toba eruption, so a descendant of the survivors.

However, the Padang specimen was still gargantuan, and it looked like the population had recovered its size in merely thousand years.

Perhaps the main reason of tiger's decreasing size was not the Toba eruption, but the complete change of the ecosystems after the Pleistocene era.

(12-02-2018, 12:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(12-02-2018, 11:39 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The Padang specimen was likely lived after the Toba eruption, so a descendant of the survivors.

However, the Padang specimen was still gargantuan, and it looked like the population had recovered its size in merely thousand years.

Perhaps the main reason of tiger's decreasing size was not the Toba eruption, but the complete change of the ecosystems after the Pleistocene era.

The document of Cooper et al. (2016) shows for the first time the reach of the Toba eruption and its significance to the tiger populations. Theorized that the population of tigers in the Sunda shelf shoul be completelly extinct after this even. However it fails in explain how the Sunda tiger populations recovered not only its size but also the narrow skull even after this extinction event. Did the mainland tigers that re-invaded the Sunda just changed to exactly the same characteristics from the previous population, or some Sunda tigers could survive the event. Probably the model from Cooper and his team need to be verified again. That is why I think that the models of Kitchener & Dugmore (1999) are more accurate.

(11-26-2018, 10:19 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:

(11-26-2018, 09:08 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-26-2018, 08:46 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 04:41 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 04:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-23-2018, 01:17 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-22-2018, 09:21 AM)johnny rex Wrote:

(11-21-2018, 09:16 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Based on the femur length to skull ratios of extant tigers, I would say the Padang specimen. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

The average femur length (FL)/condylobasal length (CBL) from the above is 1.23. If we use the lower 426 mm CBL value from post #989 we'd get a femur length of 523 mm. Now the more exceptional a skull, the more we have to think about the possibility of the FL/CBL ratio being closer to 1 rather than what is in extant tigers. Even then, 490-500 mm femur would be in the realm of possibility, thus outsizing the Ngandong femur no matter which way one looks at it.

I see, what do you think of WaveRider's previous statement on the largest skull of prehistoric Panthera leo? He stated "I estimate the equivalent greatest length of skull of the largest Panthera (leo) spelaea individuals unearthed to date I am aware likely at around 500 mm and possibly even 510 mm for a couple of them, therefore approaching the size of the largest Panthera (leo) fossilis specimen known to date (the 192 mm MT3 individual from Chateau) for which I currently estimate with some necessary caution given the extreme size of this metapodial and the kind of bone it is a likely equivalent greatest length of skull in the region of 520 mm (most likely range 500-535 mm and with a 95% Confidence Interval even clearly higher then that).



WaveRiders"

Thoughts?

Dunno, but sound quite dubious to me that Cave lion's skull to rival the largest Cave bear and SF bear.

Also, WaveRiders seemed to refuse to share any of his share of information with us.

I discussed that metapodial in the cave lion thread recently. It is certainly gigantic. The main debatable point is proportions. Extrapolations from one bone to another, especially between different species, comes with a bag of salt. That's why I try to avoid the topic as much as possible. The rest as @GrizzlyClaws stated, we can't say anything as there's no record of them in any form. Dr. Marciszak knows the history of the cave lions' remains inside out and he's yet to make a mention of such.

On that old fragment, there's too much uncertainty in faunal level, range, and morphology. It lies right at the boundary of tiger and cave lion. In post #140 @GuateGojira linked to our old discussions a lifetime ago. The photos unfortunately do not show anymore, but maybe @GuateGojira could repost them if he has them saved somewhere.

I do remember you once stated that the Cromerian lion specimen with the 192 mm MT3 should have a skull in between 450 - 500 mm, but more precisely around the same league with the Chateau giant with 484.7 mm skull. Hence, the largest earlier transitional Panthera spelaea with 475 mm was indeed close to that level as well.

BTW, I think that Waverider has also mixed up the fact that the 192 mm MT3 wasn't from Chateau, but from Central Europe.

500mm skull may belonged to the Panthera (leo) fossil and Panthera (leo) spelaea's population transition? I remember that the 475mm skull also owns some Panthera fossil's characters, basis on these, I just simply analyse whether the supersize Panthera spelaea was the last gigantic Panthera fossil or not? 

BTW, as far as I'm concerned that some of the gigantic Panthera spelaea's specimens also from Central Europe in earlier period,  while in Western Europe, Panthera spelaea's size looks smaller, but on the contrary, Panthera fossil has the largest population at the same region like 484mm skull from France

The 475 mm skull belonged to the earlier Panthera spelaea population with some Panthera fossilis characteristics.

The late Panthera spelaea population got proportionally broader snout, but the maximum size of its skull was only as large as the specimen 2900-3.

 Perhaps if Panthera spelaea could survive up to nowadays, it could looks just modern Asiatic lion's size. compared with Panthera atrox, Panthera spelaea could more able to narrow the self body-size.

 

*This image is copyright of its original author

@tigerluver , could you help me to download and copy the paper ? I would appreciate it if you could help me

(12-04-2018, 06:31 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Smilodon populator, Panthera tigris soloensis, Panthera atrox, Panthera spelaea, and a few others it appears ( to me ) that they reached the natural size limit for the big cats.