(03-28-2022, 08:41 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(03-27-2022, 12:08 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:

Quote:. So, I think that a body mass of about 450 kg

While I really hope of a such high estimate, I doubt it was actually that heavy. Now estomating without a dorsal view is useless, but I've been doing a comparison between this cat and the GDIed 434 kg smilodon

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Maybe it's just me, but I guess that the new version seems a bit wankier than the previous one, I guess it looks more like 400 kgish.
But again, visual estimates are useless until we don't see a dorsal view

In order to avoid confusions and missunderstandings in the future, I suggest you to quote the entire phrase and not only a part of it. I did not stated that I think that this particular new specimen weighed 450 kg, I said (and I quote myself) that: "I think that a body mass of about 450 kg seems not out of question, surpassing any modern or prehistoric Panthera member!" That is a different statement, and is only suggesting that estimations of up to that figure could be plausible.

Now, returing to the point, a GDE estimation, like Tigerluver explained before, is problematic and arbitrary en many senses, as we need a tridimentional point of view of the animal and honestly the upper view of the specimen used in that calculation that you quoted it looks more like a large modern tiger-lion than a Smilodon. The Smilodon species, especifically fatalis and populator, were massive and wide in its body, check that even for the biggest S. fatalis which measured about 180 cm in body length and 100 cm in height (average for a modern lion), already weighed up to 280 kg (more than the biggest modern tiger), so they were very stocky and that image reflect it but just partially.

Also, as far I remember randomdinos once explained that the black silouete in his images represents the basic musculature, not a maximum or minimum. So that same specimen with a little of more musculature and fat will definitelly weight more.

Finaly, we need to remember that all the body masses of prehistoric animals are estimations based in formulas which results may vary depening of the methods and sources of its data, so we need to be careful and not take it like the last true. However based in its size and massivenes we can say that Smilodon populator did surpassed the 400 kg and certainly is one, of not, the heaviest felid of all times (for the moment....).

(04-03-2022, 02:28 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: What size would you estimate for the giant lower jaw specimen of the Ngandong tiger? As in height, body length and mass. 
Thank you.

(04-04-2022, 09:58 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-03-2022, 02:28 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: What size would you estimate for the giant lower jaw specimen of the Ngandong tiger? As in height, body length and mass. 
Thank you.

The size of the mandible is about 270 mm reconstructed, so the skull length that I calculated for that animal was of about 400 mm. These values are about the same as the biggest tiger skull ever reported with a GSL of 406.4 mm and a mandible of 276.2 mm (Mazák, 2013), but bigger than the biggest tiger skull measured by scientists with GSL of 383 mm and a mandible of 260 mm (Mazák, 1981).

With this information at hand, we can estimate that this mandible belonged to an specimen of the same size as the biggest Amur-Bengal tiger specimens recorded, which means a head-body slightly over 220 cm, a shoulder height of about 110 cm and a weight up to 300 kg, just like the biggest Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) reported at this moment in scientific litterature.

(04-05-2022, 03:47 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I think he was referring about the giant broken mandible from @tigerluver.

(01-16-2022, 10:07 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Mandible length of fragment is affected by allometry. The "mandible length" measurement in the tiger paper is not the same as complete mandible length. Rather, you will see that as the mandible size increased, the surrogate "mandible length" comprises proportionately less and less of the total mandible. In other words, positive allometry. Here is a visual:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
The larger specimens have a shorter horizontal ramus and surrogate mandible length compared to total mandible length. You will see here that comparison of the surrogate "mandible length" between 1a and 3a will underestimate 3a by a massive 17% (65/76). Therefore, the clean isometric relation of total mandible length does not apply. This is why height and width dimensions of the ramus are important, as there is less allometric effect on estimation theoretically when we pool together many measurements. This is also probably why multiple measurements are used in the estimate, to make up for this error. It is important to know these allometric relationships before choosing a single measurement as "most accurate" as clearly, the surrogate mandible length has hefty underestimation.

The comparative specimen used to estimate via mandible length is very small. As such, using a scale factor of 3 would underestimate the mass as the actual scale factor is greater than 3.

It may happen in time that the Christiansen estimations show to be underestimates across the board. The database is measured from digital photos, which can result in measurements a bit exaggerated as compared to in person measurements. This underestimates any specimen not also measured digitally.

(06-09-2022, 10:15 AM)jrocks Wrote: hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks

(06-10-2022, 04:02 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(06-09-2022, 10:15 AM)jrocks Wrote: hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks

I know that the question is not for me, but if this helps, here are the lists of Panthera atrox and Panthera spelaea skulls that include the biggest specimens recorded at this moment:

First, Panthera atrox from Merriam & Stock (1932):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now, Panthera spelaea from Marciszak et al. (2013):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see, only one skull is over 475 mm and its length is in doubth as it is badly crushed, and even the one estimated at 475 mm is just that, an estimation as probably is broken at the end. If that person claim that are bigger skulls, he/she MUST present hard evidence, if not, you can discard his/her words.

(06-09-2022, 10:15 AM)jrocks Wrote: hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks

(06-10-2022, 05:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(06-09-2022, 10:15 AM)jrocks Wrote: hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks

I was reading the posts of that person in Carnivora, specifically those from that topic and he never mentioned anything of "6 or 7 specimens", in fact, his previous post only copy-paste some information provided by Waveriders in 2012 and although Waveriders mentions that "bigger" specimens may exist, he based his statement in limb bones, not skulls. At the end, I don't see anything suggesting that are 6-7 bigger skulls out there and this person 2ZB is the one that mentions this.

Certainly the use of an old post with no update in the information (2012), from a cryptic/unreliable poster (Waveriders) and an incorrect interpretation (2ZB) cause confusion, from my point of view.

(06-10-2022, 07:03 AM)jrocks Wrote: oh, i read 6 or 7 (and possibly more) distinct individuals which were said to be larger on page 4 of that thread although yes 2ZB also mentions it
also, are those statements waveriders made on the specimens of those limb bones being larger than the 475 mm skull specimen true or no

(10-30-2022, 03:08 PM)caninecat Wrote: hello @GuateGojira, stumbled upon a 2019 article about the 2019 Borenean tiger. You yourself think this article is amazing that he was given a weight of 478 kg, with a mandible measurement of 206 cm, although with such a structure of the mandible, his GSL should be only 312 cm. I do not imagine that a tiger with a long skull of 312 cm would weigh 478 kg. I would like to ask you - is such a large weight estimate correct, or is the Mosbach lion still larger than this tiger?