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)



RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 09-13-2018

(09-12-2018, 10:44 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In conclusion, which tiger group this mandible had showed more affiliation to? Mainland or Sunda?

Since the broader snout should be a trait that belonged to the Mainland tiger group.


It's too hard to say right now. I am going to be taking a lot of measurements on a lot of skulls in hopes that I can detect differences between subspecies with just the anterior half of the mandible. As of now every scenario I have hypothesized is rejected by some extant specimen somewhere. In the end, I'll be doing a morphological cladistic analysis and I really hope a lot of measurements can make up for the lack of the rest of the specimen. 

@GuateGojira , very nice comparisons. The fact that the photo I released has some issues with distortion is probably playing a part in making the reconstruction look a bit off. Add to that, the extant comparison specimens have differing body to vertical ramus ratios.

Interestingly, as @GrizzlyClaws mentioned, P. atrox has the best fit in terms of shape for the mandible. My theory is that allometry is playing a part, as giant need to be compared with other giants to prevent allometry confounding comparisons. In other words, smaller animals have different development than larger animals, in turn making a comparison between a 470 mm skull with a 320 mm skull likely inaccurate. Between P. atrox and the fragment, the contours are very similar. However, in the tiger fragment the canine is quite a bit larger (expected) and the dentition are anteriorly shifted (also expected as tigers have shorter snouts).


*This image is copyright of its original author



RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-13-2018

If we follow the comparison based on allometry, then both Pleistocene lion and tiger have developed more prominent mandibular condyle, also more squared mandible.

Then the overall skull structure should also be universal for all Pleistocene big cats to differ from their modern counterparts.

Maybe when the skull had grown into a much larger size, the overall skull structure had been altered in order to sustain a stronger reinforcement?


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GuateGojira - 09-13-2018

I support the conclusion of @tigerluver, lions have shorter femurs in relation with the skull, while tigers have longer femurs in relation with they skulls. It seems that the Spealea group have the same morphology, it will be interesting to see if leopards and jaguars have the same characteristic.

This is why is incorrect to say that tigers and lions are equal without the skin. In fact they ahve many morphological diferences and some of them are easy to see without been an expert.


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Smilodon-Rex - 09-16-2018

(09-11-2018, 11:10 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(09-11-2018, 05:48 PM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
The Panthera atrox's fur record, it looks like a real lion but not jaguar. BTW, according to the new studies, Panthera atroxs in South America also has been discovered that they may living in the cave.

Sadly, there is no evidence that this is skin from P. atrox, the authors only "labeled" as that because the original person that discovered the fragment believed that it was from a "cat". Check the paper and you will see.

Please, check the document of Dr Barnett Ross and you will why HE is not agree with the new results. After all, morphology had created confusion before, while the genetic evidence is better. Remember who is Dr Ross by the way, so his opinion on the case is very valid.
Well, my English is not very excellent, so please forgive me, I just mention in the simple suggestion.


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GuateGojira - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 12:10 PM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote: Well, my English is not very excellent, so please forgive me, I just mention in the simple suggestion.

There is nothing to forgive, of course that yoour suggestion is also valid. I was just pointing out what Dr Ross says.

Don't worry my friend. Happy Like


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 09-17-2018

To keep things organized I've moved Spinosaurus posts here and T. rex posts here.


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-17-2018

(09-17-2018, 02:53 AM)tigerluver Wrote: To keep things organized I've moved Spinosaurus posts here and T. rex posts here.

@tigerluver, can you estimate the weight of the entire mandible?

With the estimated weight of the entire mandible, we can also estimate the weight of its skull.

Intuitively, we can perceive how impressive this specimen really was.


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 09-18-2018

If we estimate one side of the mandible to be 1.4x longer, then theoretically half of the mandible would weigh 590.8 g (422 g * 1.4). Doubling that to find the weight of the complete mandible would calculate 1,181.6 g (590.8 g * 2). I'm not sure what to make of the affect of fossilization on the mandible and there is a little bit of dirt in trabeculae that add a few grams to the weight probably. You are much better than me at the rest of the skull info @GrizzlyClaws , I look forward to your analysis.


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - GrizzlyClaws - 09-18-2018

(09-18-2018, 09:55 AM)tigerluver Wrote: If we estimate one side of the mandible to be 1.4x longer, then theoretically half of the mandible would weigh 590.8 g (422 g * 1.4). Doubling that to find the weight of the complete mandible would calculate 1,181.6 g (590.8 g * 2). I'm not sure what to make of the affect of fossilization on the mandible and there is a little bit of dirt in trabeculae that add a few grams to the weight probably. You are much better than me at the rest of the skull info @GrizzlyClaws , I look forward to your analysis.

I don't have the data about the ratio of the skull/mandible either.

Maybe @peter could do us a favor?


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Smilodon-Rex - 09-24-2018


*This image is copyright of its original author

The area for muscle attachment's difference between tiger and smilodon


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Roflcopters - 09-29-2018

this topic feels incomplete without the Katarniaghat female of Dudhwa NP.


*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author


the big girl!


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - genao87 - 09-30-2018

thats a female tiger?  holy molly!!   what is her weight?  looks short on the legs but that i bet is because of the angle on the second picture.    if you haven't said that i would of thought it was a male tiger.   i think she can rival that big White Tiger girl but she is a captive specimen.

on a side note, i should not have gotten into some battles with some lion fans. i said to myself i was over this because all these arguments have aged me. i am tempted to show this image to them but i will refrain myself.


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - P.T.Sondaica - 10-01-2018

@Smilodon-Rex  that why tiger more bite force because jaws muscle tiger area p4p bigger than smilodon


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - Smilodon-Rex - 10-03-2018

(10-01-2018, 11:38 AM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: @Smilodon-Rex  that why tiger more bite force because jaws muscle tiger area p4p bigger than smilodon
Smilodon's jaws more narrow than lion and tiger, but smilodon is a saber-tooth predator, it just needs the oversize canines to bit swiftly and sharply, it also a powerful and effective killing method


RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - P.T.Sondaica - 10-04-2018

@Smilodon-Rex But Panthera is more effective because short fangs avoid breaking when prey move
While long fang are brittle and break easily if prey moves (National geographic chanel)
Smilodon stronger in neck 
Panthera stronger in jaws