(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

(11-19-2018, 07:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?

BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.

(11-19-2018, 07:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?

BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.

That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.

The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.

(11-19-2018, 07:52 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?

BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.

That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.

The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.

I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.

However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.

(11-19-2018, 07:52 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?

BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.

That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.

The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.

I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.

However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.

(11-19-2018, 08:53 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:52 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?

BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.

That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.

The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.

I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.

However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.

Tiger's face looks like a Felidae because of the short and round character, perhaps they were rising lately and without developing specially I think, and they may never expand the range out of Asia like Lion.
Tiger and Snow Leopard are Asiatic native Panthea species and without any population which out of Asia, however, Snow Leopard's
descent has owned some African Panthera species's characters,  therefore,  Tiger is the most pure Asiatic native Panthera species，compared with Lion-Leopard-Jaguar, they are more conservative.

(11-19-2018, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:52 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?

BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.

That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.

The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.

I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.

However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.

I have actually noticed that the tiger has the least robust mandible in terms of height. Here's a comparison with the mandibles scaled to about the same length:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Anteriorly and posteriorly, the tiger has the shortest mandible. Posteriorly, the lion has the tallest mandible. The American lion consistently has a tall mandible for its length throughout.

(11-19-2018, 10:26 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:52 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?

BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.

That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.

The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.

I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.

However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.

I have actually noticed that the tiger has the least robust mandible in terms of height. Here's a comparison with the mandibles scaled to about the same length:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Anteriorly and posteriorly, the tiger has the shortest mandible. Posteriorly, the lion has the tallest mandible. The American lion consistently has a tall mandible for its length throughout.

But wasn't the Padang mandible proportionally robust compared to that of Panthera atrox?

BTW, maybe the robusticity can be varied over time.

(11-19-2018, 10:31 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 10:26 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:52 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:17 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 07:01 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:54 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.

Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?

Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?

I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.

Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?

BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.

That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.

The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.

I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.

However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.

I have actually noticed that the tiger has the least robust mandible in terms of height. Here's a comparison with the mandibles scaled to about the same length:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Anteriorly and posteriorly, the tiger has the shortest mandible. Posteriorly, the lion has the tallest mandible. The American lion consistently has a tall mandible for its length throughout.

But wasn't the Padang mandible proportionally robust compared to that of Panthera atrox?

BTW, maybe the robusticity can be varied over time.

So in terms of mandibular height the Padang mandible matches the largest P. atrox in absolute (not relative) measures. If the mandible is like that of extant tigers, this would mean the mandible is likely longer than the P. atrox mandibles by quite a bit but it still would be technically proportionately shorter.

On the other hand, the Ngandong mandible is very thick and tall despite not being that long, so you are right that throughout history mandibular height has evolved in the tiger.

(11-19-2018, 10:08 PM)tigerluver Wrote: A tall, robust mandible very well may be a trait of primitive cats. See how tall P. zdanskyi is in the mandible even though its skull is long and narrow:

*This image is copyright of its original author

(11-19-2018, 06:31 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(11-18-2018, 07:58 PM)johnny rex Wrote:

(11-18-2018, 10:27 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I speculate that the Pleistocene tiger might also have a 1:1 skull/femur ratio.

Otherwise, the femur of the Padang specimen would simply become an outrageous outlier which looks very unlikely.

Maybe the Ngandong specimen also possesses a 470-480 mm skull like the Padang specimen, since the body proportion of the tiger might also vary over time.

Can I see the photo of that Padang specimen skull around 470-480 mm? Is it a specimen of Panthera tigris soloensis?

As @GrizzlyClaws stated, it is a fragmented piece. It is younger than the Ngandong tiger by a few hundred thousand years.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

At the estimated base of the enamel (estimated due to the mandible being missing around most of the canine), the lower canine crown height (CH) is 67 mm. Christiansen (2008) posted the average measurements of condylobasal length and lower canine crown height that give us one possible estimate of the condylobasal length (CBL) of the mandible.

*This image is copyright of its original author

If we use all tigers, the mandible's CBL would be estimated as:

CBL fossil = CH fossil/CH extant  CBL extant = 67 mm/43.59 mm * 276.9 mm = 426 mm

Greatest skull length (GSL) is generally 1.11x CBL at minimum, for a GSL of ~472 mm.

Now if we only use male tigers (which have shorter canines for their skulls) we get:

CBL fossil = CH fossil/CH extant  CBL extant = 67 mm/44.50 mm * 291.9 mm = 440 mm

Greatest skull length (GSL) is generally 1.11x CBL at minimum, for a GSL of ~488 mm.

It is beyond question that the mandible is from a male, so perhaps the male to male comparison is of more use.

(11-21-2018, 09:16 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Based on the femur length to skull ratios of extant tigers, I would say the Padang specimen. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

The average femur length (FL)/condylobasal length (CBL) from the above is 1.23. If we use the lower 426 mm CBL value from post #989 we'd get a femur length of 523 mm. Now the more exceptional a skull, the more we have to think about the possibility of the FL/CBL ratio being closer to 1 rather than what is in extant tigers. Even then, 490-500 mm femur would be in the realm of possibility, thus outsizing the Ngandong femur no matter which way one looks at it.