+- 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 - GrizzlyClaws - 07-16-2016
The plausible scenario could be that Panthera shawi, as the earliest stem group for the lion-like cats, had diverged into two species in 1.89 mya, the one remained in Africa became Panthera leo, and the one migrated to Eurasia became Panthera spelaea.
And yes, the canine teeth of Panthera shawi is definitely within the range of the spelaea species.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - brotherbear - 07-24-2016
Old stories, such as 'Aesop's Fables' speak of lions in Europe. Were there lions in medieval Europe and, if so when, where, and what subspecies?
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Polar - 07-24-2016
@
There were lions of either the Asian/African subspecies (tigerluver and GrizzlyClaws helped me on this topic earlier on the thread) in Mediterranean Europe.
I am not sure about medieval Europe, but the B.C. times definitely saw lions in that region. And before the modern lion expansion to Europe, there was the Paleolithic Cave Lion subspecies.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 07-24-2016
The post-10,000 BC lions in Europe were Panthera leo, not Panthera spelaea.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Polar - 07-24-2016
(07-24-2016, 09:03 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The post-10,000 BC lions in Europe were Panthera leo, not Panthera spelaea.
By B.C., I meant the times right before A.D. came (<10000 B.C.). Sorry if I didn't specify that in my earlier post.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 07-24-2016
The European Panthera leo existed prior to 10,000 BC and survived to a unspecific time in AD.
On the other hand, Panthera spelaea was first recorded in 360,000 BC and survived until 10,000 BC.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - parvez - 07-27-2016
(06-11-2016, 03:58 PM)peter Wrote: Fascinating photograph. Was there a report?Thanks Peter, Even in the many pictures i saw, bengal tigers particularly assam and terai tigers had the shoulder height to paw width ratio unusually high. Where as for huge siberians it is clearly not the case. I even measured pixels and their ratios. Assam tigers measure clearly around more than 8 for larger specimens. Where as in siberians it is around5-7
The comparison with the Bengal tiger, however, is incorrect. In order to get an idea about the size of the cat that left a print, you need to measure the width of the pad. In adult wild Amur tigresses, the width ranges between 8-11 cm. In males, the pad width is 9-13,5 cm.
A print with a pad width of 10-12 cm. is impressive:
*This image is copyright of its original author
In spite of the size of the print, the male tiger who left them most probably didn't exceed 200 kg. In India, a tiger who leaves a print of the size seen in the photograph above usually is well over that mark. One could say wild Amur tigers have large paws for their size.
As to Indian tigers and paws. Those with experience wrote hill tigers, in spite of their large size, often left prints not much larger than those of a large male leopard.
There is a relation between pad width and size in tigers, but it is not a strong one and it differs from place to place. In India, elevation also is a factor to consider.
To return to the photograph taken in Argentina. The pad width seems to be 9-10 cm. If the cat who left them compared to an Amur tiger, chances are it could have been an adult female ranging between 100-140 kg. Smilodon, however, was a robust cat.
Good find, Brotherbear.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 08-02-2016
A very new article on estimating the mass of cats. Discuss this one in a bit. Until then, take a read and share your thoughts.
A new specimen-dependent method of estimating felid body mass
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Pckts - 08-02-2016
Interesting read, their hypothesis on bone size and density between the three big cats makes sense to me. Jaguars and Tigers look as though they carry more mass compared to a lion which looks as though it is a bit "sleeker" and the assumption of open plain life requiring longer strides with less strain on the joints compared to a forest life that require tight maneuvers with quick stops and turns.
What I take away from that is, Lions need to be fast in a straight line while jags and tigers need to be able to stop and turn on a dime and not as fast in a straight line.
In regards to the estimates, that makes sense that there would be a bit of a discrepancy between weight estimates. If we were to go off of their "long bone" theory, that would mean that for tigers, the tallest cat would be the heaviest cat, which we know isn't always the case, I would also think that holds true with the Jaguar. Because they hold their weight differently, its very hard to estimate that for jags and tigers, Lions may hold a bit more true in that sense. But I believe they said the correlation was stronger for tigers and jags than Lions?
So that would suggest otherwise.
Still interesting to read and helps give a clearer idea of what terrain and habitat do to the evolution of closely related species.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 08-02-2016
Well, usually a longer bone equates to a longer cat, so I wouldn't say the authors are saying height is the best predictor of body mass. Plus, they took into account bone robusticity, which is a step beyond using only height for mass estimation.
If you look at tables 3 and 4, it seems that tiger and the jaguar mis-estimated each less, and that's the correlation the author seems to describe.
The next step in understanding differences in the bones of closed and open area species would need analysis of musculature. I remember a study that discussed cortical bone thickness of different species and the lion did not seem much different from that tiger in that regard, so I'm thinking what one can get from bones has been exhausted.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Richardrli - 08-02-2016
tigerluver, are you the author of this paper?
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 08-05-2016
(08-02-2016, 04:18 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Well, usually a longer bone equates to a longer cat, so I wouldn't say the authors are saying height is the best predictor of body mass. Plus, they took into account bone robusticity, which is a step beyond using only height for mass estimation.
If you look at tables 3 and 4, it seems that tiger and the jaguar mis-estimated each less, and that's the correlation the author seems to describe.
The next step in understanding differences in the bones of closed and open area species would need analysis of musculature. I remember a study that discussed cortical bone thickness of different species and the lion did not seem much different from that tiger in that regard, so I'm thinking what one can get from bones has been exhausted.
Ngandong tiger tooth according to a fossil collector from Vietnam.
http://sabercattooth.deviantart.com/art/My-precious-collection-fossil-595550360
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - genao87 - 08-07-2016
How many more fossils have we found about the Ngandong Tiger? how you doing Grizz.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 08-08-2016
@genao87, nice to see you again buddy.
I am fine, but we don't have much fossils discovered by the official institution so far.
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - genao87 - 08-08-2016
so we still are in the same boat....same with Spinosaurus then i just found out....damn what a let down Spino was if the latest findings turn out to be true.
from tigerluver's link....interesting...looks to be a good thing.
Panthera tigris soloensis points to great plasticity within the tiger lineage in terms of size, indicating that such variations among tiger populations may not warrant subspeciation.