WildFact
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Printable Version

+- 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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

What is your approximation for the Wanhsien tiger with the 14 cm lower canine tooth?

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

I think the Manchurian mandible's lower canine tooth is more similar to that of the Panthera youngi than the 14 cm one.


*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

Here is some 600-700 years old South China tiger's lower canine tooth.

The 14 cm canine looks closer to the South China tiger than to the Manchurian mandible.


*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 09-26-2015

From the overlay, I got a GSL of 464 mm. I didn't use a pixel measuring method because the tooth's ruler is at an angle, I just put a ruler over the image itself if you'd like to try it out that way too.

The canine of the Manchurian mandible looks a lot like those in Merriam and Stock. Very thick with a less tapered end.

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

Maybe the Manchurian mandible is closely related to Panthera atrox, and both species could be the offspring of the earlier Panthera fossilis.

Since all Pleistocene lion-like cats got proportionally thick canine teeth, but it is shorter in comparison.

Do you notice that both Solo River tooth and the 14 cm lower canine are significantly longer than the canines of the lion-like cats?

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 09-26-2015

I brought it up a long while ago that the mandible really did look cave lion-like. I don't think I pointed this out earlier, but look at the little protrusion at the symphysis:

*This image is copyright of its original author


A lot of P. spelaea have that bump/protrusion. Some P. atrox do too. I've never seen the bump on P. fossilis, though.

That bump is seen in P. youngi too. It is in the Wahnsien skull as well, but that skull has by crushed from above so maybe that caused it. 

You've brought up a really good point on the thickness.

I think we all can see why the fossils in Russia, Manchuria, and Alaska have been so hotly debated as to whether they were tiger or lion.

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

Do you know the average length/width ratio for today's lion/tiger canine teeth?

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 09-26-2015

Looks like I remembered wrong on the upper canine ratios (edited last post for this reason). Tigers are 0.4778 in alveoli AP width/crown height while lions are 0.4673. Maybe the under gum region of tigers is longer, but I don't know of any study that went that in depth. 

I haven't found anything on lower canines either. But from my own exploration cave lion teeth are wide and robust compared to the Ngandong teeth.

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

Maybe the "Manchurian" mandible isn't really from Manchuria, since the fossil smuggler can smuggle the fossils from elsewhere.

BTW, what do you think about this?


*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



*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Fieryeel - 09-26-2015

(09-26-2015, 03:08 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: It looks quite odd, but consider that the fossils of the Javan tigers are more fossilized than others', hence it explains the deformed shape.

Fossilization does not deform a tooth so much as to change the morphology, especially for such recent specimens. These ones could be as young as 10,000 years old, or as old as 1.8 million. Some fossils do get deformed, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Shark teeth for example, can be over 30 million years old, yet look just like modern day shark teeth.

If we are going to assign it as a tiger/leopard(despite deformities in the shape), there must be some incredibly strong evidence about it that would make it irrefutably feline.

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

I still think I can find the modern tiger tooth that matches with your fossil tooth in term of shape.

The density of your tooth is indeed matched with that of the tiger.

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Fieryeel - 09-26-2015

(09-26-2015, 07:09 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I still think I can find the modern tiger tooth that matches with your fossil tooth in term of shape.

The density of your tooth is indeed matched with that of the tiger.

I'd appreciate that a lot.

So you believe tooth 2 is tiger as well? Instead of leopard?

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

This size and density are more within tiger's domain.

It is very rare for a leopard canine to reach close to 10 cm, meanwhile it is also much lighter than a tiger canine tooth.

RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-26-2015

@Fieryeel and @tigerluver, I think the Ngandong tigers have the proportionally thinner canines which look odd compared to the modern tiger canines, but their canines are very dense and heavy.

Here is likely the Ngandong tiger upper canines found in Thailand which belonged to another part of the prehistoric Sunda Shelf, that's why it produces the different fossilization pattern from the Solo River canines.

The fossil canines just like the fresh canines..can also become cracked.


*This image is copyright of its original author


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - genao87 - 09-26-2015

(09-25-2015, 05:11 AM)tigerluver Wrote: I don't think we've met @genao87, so nice to meet you.

A rough stretch just ended for me, so I'm not ignoring any requests on purpose. I really do appreciate everyone who discusses in this topic.

Could you please give me detailed instructions on what exactly you guys are looking for, including which fossils and what type of reconstruction (drawing, measurements)?

We have met before Tiger Lover,  though I have issues with my personal life as well...with college, work, relationships,  Lion Fans,  etc.  

Hey man,  this is really nice if the Amur Tiger grew bigger in the past,   I would like a reconstruction of how big it was and compare it to the Nnogtong Tiger and the Wooly Tiger. 

Is it safe to assume that now the Amur Tiger has a more robust skull compare to the Bengal Tiger?   That this was how the Amur was in the past and what it should be today,  assuming there is enough food to support it.


I kind of think our ancestor and even the largest humanoids were cat food to these guys.