+- 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: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines (/topic-freak-felids-a-discussion-of-history-s-largest-felines)
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GuateGojira - 06-14-2015
Yes, lions seems to have longer skulls than tigers, but this is because lions have larger snout than tiger. However, on the other hand, tiger skulls have larger brain cases than lions, and the difference is high.
Skull size is not related with weight in modern lions, many of the largest skulls (about 380 - 400 mm) came from average sized lions of no more than 200 kg.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 06-14-2015
I was wondering about the skull to mass issue as I'm filing my appendices soon. I'll just stick with a basic CBL to mass estimate.
@GuateGojira, do you have any sources I can cite to prove the issue with skull size and body size/mass, such as records where both skull and body length are given?
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GuateGojira - 06-14-2015
There ins't to much, but I am going to search in my data and I am going to give to you. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 06-14-2015
Thank you as always, Guate [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img].
I cracked the Christiansen method of measuring skulls case. I stated that the CBL values would produce GSL way too large. The angle of the method causing a slight inflation of the CBL and/or at least the CBL/GSL ratio. Things were made worse as Christiansen used a 2D image instead of a 3D actual skull. This error showed when comparing Merriam and Stock data with the Christiansen measurements. Some of Christiansen's CBL values were longer than Merriam and Stock's measurements. It seems that Christiansen's digital method is not necessarily compatible with the rest of the records. Therefore, when using his equations, many skull lengths won't apply perfectly unless certain correction are used on the traditional measurement.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 06-19-2015
I am thinking about the divergent evolution within the P. tigris species, while the convergent evolution between the earlier P. tigris and the lion clade member such as the P. spelaea.
That could perhaps explain the morphological inconsistency between the Pleistocene mandible and many modern tigers.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 06-23-2015
Going by dating of faunal sites were tiger-like cats were found, maybe something like the following occured. Panthera palaeosinensis may have branched off into multiple lineages, one producing the Longdan tiger around 2.5 million years ago. A Longdan tiger population may have migrated to Sunda and evolved in P. (t?). oxygnatha which subsequently evolved into the Ngandong tiger and then the modern form. The Northern population may have evolved into what we have called the Wahnsien tiger based on the similarities and may actually a different Panthera species of the tiger clad.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 06-23-2015
Maybe P. youngi is just another synonym for the Wanhsien tiger, since the two aforementioned entities are almost identical.
But the Wanhsien tiger also demostrates some strong connection with some modern tiger like the South Chinese tiger.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 07-15-2015
@tigerluver, can you re-analyze this p4 tooth from the Ngandong tiger?
The fossil seller described it as a massive specimen, while Guate believed it was just slightly larger than the modern tiger.
This p4 tooth is partially broken according to the seller, so maybe there are some hidden information you can discover via the re-analysis.
http://www.paleodirect.com/pgset2/lmx061.htm
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 07-15-2015
I see two on the webpage.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Were you guys sure the first one is a lower P4? It might be an upper P4 comparing it to the Ngandong skull of vK.
The second tooth is a lower p3 or p4? I'm leaning toward p4. I'm having a hard time identifying for certain these teeth, they look polished or smoothened in some way, or maybe just withered.
Before I can do anything, I'd just like to make sure. I wasn't aware of these.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 07-15-2015
Yeah, you were right, the author did mislabel the tooth.
Also, the measurement of the tooth is extremely vague, and I am not sure what the crown height means so far.
PS, Guate didn't notice this typo as well, and he just conveniently assumed that the 1.5 inches is the length of the 'p4' tooth. Therefore, it is not much larger than the 37.8mm p4 tooth of the Amur tiger recorded by Mazak.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 07-16-2015
I see that I messed up my last post regarding tooth identification. I can't say what I was thinking, but it was 3 AM and I was in a hurry, sorry about that.
Regardless, the larger 1.45 in (36.8 mm) tooth is a superior P4. The c. 380 mm skull of vK has a upper P4 of 37.5 mm and 36 mm, so we can infer this private collection specimen is of similar size.
The smaller tooth, I think, is a lower p4. It's 1 in (25.4 mm), which is smaller than the Wateolang mandible teeth and again, likely similarly sized as the c. 380 mm skull of vK.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 07-16-2015
Compare the right-most skull to the other two. Which of the other two skulls match vK's skull better?
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 07-16-2015
I think the left one matches slightly better with VK's skull.
BTW, is the left one an Amur and the right one a Bengal?
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 07-16-2015
The left is a male Amur and the right a female Amur. This is from a paper about skull dimorphism between sexes in tigers. Check the attachment for the paper and see p. 398 for the run through. I'm trying to determine the gender of skull's owner.
The poorly developed saggital crest and cristae point to a female. The postorbital constriction and interorbital breadth relationship point to a male. The narrow muzzle points to a female. The robust zygomatic arches, although narrow in breadth, are contradictory. With one skull, I can't say what traits are species specific and what are gender specific. Perhaps a adolescent male?
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 07-16-2015
That skull is about 40 cm, so it is a bit too large to be a female.
The chance being a smallish sub-adult male could be likely, since the large adult males' skull could definitelly grow up to 45-46 cm.
I think the more developed sagittal crest could perhaps eventually point toward a male?