There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(04-28-2020, 11:29 AM)tigerluver Wrote: I had some time and put together a size comparison of all known forms of tiger. For extant species, the size was based on Mazak (1981) and some data of @GuateGojira. The average size of a male of each extant (or recently extinct) form is represented. For the fossil tigers, the estimations were based as follows:
P. t. trinilensis: Based on a mandible just shy of 200 mm, which would be of a skull around 300 mm (the size of P. t. balica).
P. t. acutidens: Based on the upper p4s in Colbert and Hooijer. The p4 of 42 mm outsizes a 204 cm tiger (p4 38 mm - personal data and Christiansen and Harris, Christiansen and Adolfssen data). Thus the body length would be 220-225 cm.
P. t. soloensis: The 480 mm femur is ~1.15x longer than the average femur of 3 males in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007) that measured ~204 cm, for an estimated body length of ~235 cm.
P. t. ssp. (Pleistocene Borneo): The mandible is 1.27x longer than the mandible of a 380 mm Amur tiger skull published in Sherani (2019). It can be inferred this Amur tiger was at least as the three Christiansen and Adofssen (2007) males. Multiplying 1.27 by 204 cm we get a body length of ~260 cm.
Always open to refinements in scale and the subspecies sizes. @GuateGojira has a more thorough infographic of the measurements of extant subspecies, so the purpose of the following was to show how fossil tigers sized up in comparison. To enlarge the image, right click and choose "Open image in new tab".
*This image is copyright of its original author
Hope everyone is safe and well.
Good job @tigerluver. I am impresed with the size of the Pleistocene tiger of Borneo. This huge tiger is the equivalent of the Natodameri lion, I guess, because is so close to the modern species that still don't have they own "subspecies".
If is posible, can you send me the measurements of the mandible? You can do it trought personal message if you want it. I will like to add the other 4 prehistoric tigers to a new graphic.
(04-28-2020, 11:29 AM)tigerluver Wrote: I had some time and put together a size comparison of all known forms of tiger. For extant species, the size was based on Mazak (1981) and some data of @GuateGojira. The average size of a male of each extant (or recently extinct) form is represented. For the fossil tigers, the estimations were based as follows:
P. t. trinilensis: Based on a mandible just shy of 200 mm, which would be of a skull around 300 mm (the size of P. t. balica).
P. t. acutidens: Based on the upper p4s in Colbert and Hooijer. The p4 of 42 mm outsizes a 204 cm tiger (p4 38 mm - personal data and Christiansen and Harris, Christiansen and Adolfssen data). Thus the body length would be 220-225 cm.
P. t. soloensis: The 480 mm femur is ~1.15x longer than the average femur of 3 males in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007) that measured ~204 cm, for an estimated body length of ~235 cm.
P. t. ssp. (Pleistocene Borneo): The mandible is 1.27x longer than the mandible of a 380 mm Amur tiger skull published in Sherani (2019). It can be inferred this Amur tiger was at least as the three Christiansen and Adofssen (2007) males. Multiplying 1.27 by 204 cm we get a body length of ~260 cm.
Always open to refinements in scale and the subspecies sizes. @GuateGojira has a more thorough infographic of the measurements of extant subspecies, so the purpose of the following was to show how fossil tigers sized up in comparison. To enlarge the image, right click and choose "Open image in new tab".
*This image is copyright of its original author
Hope everyone is safe and well.
Good job @tigerluver. I am impresed with the size of the Pleistocene tiger of Borneo. This huge tiger is the equivalent of the Natodameri lion, I guess, because is so close to the modern species that still don't have they own "subspecies".
If is posible, can you send me the measurements of the mandible? You can do it trought personal message if you want it. I will like to add the other 4 prehistoric tigers to a new graphic.
(04-28-2020, 11:29 AM)tigerluver Wrote: I had some time and put together a size comparison of all known forms of tiger. For extant species, the size was based on Mazak (1981) and some data of @GuateGojira. The average size of a male of each extant (or recently extinct) form is represented. For the fossil tigers, the estimations were based as follows:
P. t. trinilensis: Based on a mandible just shy of 200 mm, which would be of a skull around 300 mm (the size of P. t. balica).
P. t. acutidens: Based on the upper p4s in Colbert and Hooijer. The p4 of 42 mm outsizes a 204 cm tiger (p4 38 mm - personal data and Christiansen and Harris, Christiansen and Adolfssen data). Thus the body length would be 220-225 cm.
P. t. soloensis: The 480 mm femur is ~1.15x longer than the average femur of 3 males in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007) that measured ~204 cm, for an estimated body length of ~235 cm.
P. t. ssp. (Pleistocene Borneo): The mandible is 1.27x longer than the mandible of a 380 mm Amur tiger skull published in Sherani (2019). It can be inferred this Amur tiger was at least as the three Christiansen and Adofssen (2007) males. Multiplying 1.27 by 204 cm we get a body length of ~260 cm.
Always open to refinements in scale and the subspecies sizes. @GuateGojira has a more thorough infographic of the measurements of extant subspecies, so the purpose of the following was to show how fossil tigers sized up in comparison. To enlarge the image, right click and choose "Open image in new tab".
*This image is copyright of its original author
Hope everyone is safe and well.
Good job @tigerluver. I am impresed with the size of the Pleistocene tiger of Borneo. This huge tiger is the equivalent of the Natodameri lion, I guess, because is so close to the modern species that still don't have they own "subspecies".
If is posible, can you send me the measurements of the mandible? You can do it trought personal message if you want it. I will like to add the other 4 prehistoric tigers to a new graphic.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Measurement methods:
*This image is copyright of its original author
ML should be 1-9 instead of 1-8.
What are the estimations for the total length of Pleistocene Bornean tiger skull?
04-29-2020, 02:26 AM( This post was last modified: 05-05-2020, 06:38 AM by Rishi )
(04-28-2020, 11:48 PM)johnny rex Wrote:
(04-28-2020, 09:57 PM)tigerluver Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Measurement methods:
*This image is copyright of its original author
ML should be 1-9 instead of 1-8.
What are the estimations for the total length of Pleistocene Bornean tiger skull?
There are no published estimates but I can show a few methods.
One way is to compare the average modified mandible length published, link that to the average skull length of all tigers, and then extrapolate the fossil's skull length. Four subspecies were used in comparative data of Sherani (2019), P. t. altaica, P. t. tigris, P. t. corbetti, and P. t. sumatrae. The average skull length of each species combining males and females are 332 mm, 325 mm, 310 mm, and 294 mm respectively. Counting the data points in Sherani (2019) figure 4, there are 3 specimens in group of P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, P. t. corbetti and 15 P. t. tigris. So the weighted average of the mandibles given the literature data described on skull would be 320 mm. The fossil is 1.5x than the average extant tiger in the data set. Multiply 1.5 by 320 we get an estimated skull length of 480 mm.
Another way to get a rough estimate is to compare to other giants. Compared to the 455 mm P. atrox skull, the canine of the Bornean fossil is ~16% longer. Even accounting for tigers having possibly wider canines, this would indicate the skull of the Bornean fossil was likely longer. Similarly, this comparative image (despite issues in inaccurate scale bars) indicates that Bornean mandible is a bit longer in the modified mandible length measurement:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Make sure to not confuse horizontal ramus height with ramus length. The P. fossilis-atrox group are superior to all tigers in proportional horizontal ramus height as such is a primitive trait of cats.
@epaiva was able to kindly share the comparative measurements of the his cast of the 467 mm P. atrox as well. Here is one of his photos with scale:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The modified mandible length is a few percent shorter compared to the Bornean fossil while the horizontal ramus length is comparable, indicating the Bornean fossil is likely from a skull of similar to a bit longer in size.
In sum, the skull was probably no less than 450 mm, and likely in the 470-480 mm range.
In comparison to the Ngandong tiger, here is a rough femoral length extrapolation. The Bornean fossil length is 1.5x the average tiger. The average femur length of a tiger (mixing genders) is 353 mm (n=19) (Christiansen and Adolfssen 2007). Extrapolating, the estimated femur length of the Bornean mandible would be 530 mm. My gut tells me this may be a bit of an overestimate as the tigers in Sherani (2019) may be a bit smaller than those in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007). Nonetheless, in femur length and thus body size the Bornean mandible would be a ways larger. Weight comparison is more complicated as we can't compare robustness between the specimens but just given how much longer and taller the Bornean specimen is, it is likely heavier than the largest Ngandong specimen.
(04-28-2020, 11:29 AM)tigerluver Wrote: I had some time and put together a size comparison of all known forms of tiger. For extant species, the size was based on Mazak (1981) and some data of @GuateGojira. The average size of a male of each extant (or recently extinct) form is represented. For the fossil tigers, the estimations were based as follows:
P. t. trinilensis: Based on a mandible just shy of 200 mm, which would be of a skull around 300 mm (the size of P. t. balica).
P. t. acutidens: Based on the upper p4s in Colbert and Hooijer. The p4 of 42 mm outsizes a 204 cm tiger (p4 38 mm - personal data and Christiansen and Harris, Christiansen and Adolfssen data). Thus the body length would be 220-225 cm.
P. t. soloensis: The 480 mm femur is ~1.15x longer than the average femur of 3 males in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007) that measured ~204 cm, for an estimated body length of ~235 cm.
P. t. ssp. (Pleistocene Borneo): The mandible is 1.27x longer than the mandible of a 380 mm Amur tiger skull published in Sherani (2019). It can be inferred this Amur tiger was at least as the three Christiansen and Adofssen (2007) males. Multiplying 1.27 by 204 cm we get a body length of ~260 cm.
Always open to refinements in scale and the subspecies sizes. @GuateGojira has a more thorough infographic of the measurements of extant subspecies, so the purpose of the following was to show how fossil tigers sized up in comparison. To enlarge the image, right click and choose "Open image in new tab".
*This image is copyright of its original author
Hope everyone is safe and well.
Good job @tigerluver. I am impresed with the size of the Pleistocene tiger of Borneo. This huge tiger is the equivalent of the Natodameri lion, I guess, because is so close to the modern species that still don't have they own "subspecies".
If is posible, can you send me the measurements of the mandible? You can do it trought personal message if you want it. I will like to add the other 4 prehistoric tigers to a new graphic.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Measurement methods:
*This image is copyright of its original author
ML should be 1-9 instead of 1-8.
What are the estimations for the total length of Pleistocene Bornean tiger skull?
There are no published estimates but I can show a few methods.
One way is to compare the average modified mandible length published, link that to the average skull length of all tigers, and then extrapolate the fossil's skull length. Four subspecies were used in comparative data of Sherani (2019), P. t. altaica, P. t. tigris, P. t. corbetti, and P. t. sumatrae. The average skull length of each species combining males and females are 332 mm, 325 mm, 310 mm, and 294 mm respectively. Counting the data points in Sherani (2019) figure 4, there are 3 specimens in group of P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, P. t. corbetti and 15 P. t. tigris. So the weighted average of the mandibles given the literature data described on skull would be 320 mm. The fossil is 1.5x than the average extant tiger in the data set. Multiply 1.5 by 320 we get an estimated skull length of 480 mm.
Another way to get a rough estimate is to compare to other giants. Compared to the 455 mm P. atrox skull, the canine of the Bornean fossil is ~16% longer. Even accounting for tigers having possibly wider canines, this would indicate the skull of the Bornean fossil was likely longer. Similarly, this comparative image (despite issues in inaccurate scale bars) indicates that Bornean mandible is a bit longer in the modified mandible length measurement:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Make sure to not confuse horizontal ramus height with ramus length. The P. fossilis-atrox group are superior to all tigers in proportional horizontal ramus height as such is a primitive trait of cats.
@epaiva was able to kindly share the comparative measurements of the his cast of the 467 mm P. atrox as well. Here is one of his photos with scale:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The modified mandible length is a few percent shorter compared to the Bornean fossil while the horizontal ramus length is comparable, indicating the Bornean fossil is likely from a skull of similar to a bit longer in size.
In sum, the skull was probably no less than 450 mm, and likely in the 470-480 mm range.
In comparison to the Ngandong tiger, here is a rough femoral length extrapolation. The Bornean fossil length is 1.5x the average tiger. The average femur length of a tiger (mixing genders) is 353 mm (n=19) (Christiansen and Adolfssen 2007). Extrapolating, the estimated femur length of the Bornean mandible would be 530 mm. My gut tells me this may be a bit of an overestimate as the tigers in Sherani (2019) may be a bit smaller than those in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007). Nonetheless, in femur length and thus body size the Bornean mandible would be a ways larger. Weight comparison is more complicated as we can't compare robustness between the specimens but just given how much longer and taller the Bornean specimen is, it is likely heavier than the largest Ngandong specimen.
Ok, that's it, I want to make a comparative image with this huge tiger! @tigerluver, can you provide me with the head-body, shoulder height, skull length and body mass estimated for this tiger? I want to make the comparison now that I have a little of time. By the way, do you think that we can use a Sunda tiger for comparative image, or a mainland tiger? I have two side-view images for that.
04-29-2020, 06:53 AM( This post was last modified: 05-05-2020, 06:40 AM by Rishi )
(04-29-2020, 03:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-29-2020, 02:26 AM)tigerluver Wrote: There are no published estimates but I can show a few methods.
One way is to compare the average modified mandible length published, link that to the average skull length of all tigers, and then extrapolate the fossil's skull length. Four subspecies were used in comparative data of Sherani (2019), P. t. altaica, P. t. tigris, P. t. corbetti, and P. t. sumatrae. The average skull length of each species combining males and females are 332 mm, 325 mm, 310 mm, and 294 mm respectively. Counting the data points in Sherani (2019) figure 4, there are 3 specimens in group of P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, P. t. corbetti and 15 P. t. tigris. So the weighted average of the mandibles given the literature data described on skull would be 320 mm. The fossil is 1.5x than the average extant tiger in the data set. Multiply 1.5 by 320 we get an estimated skull length of 480 mm.
Another way to get a rough estimate is to compare to other giants. Compared to the 455 mm P. atrox skull, the canine of the Bornean fossil is ~16% longer. Even accounting for tigers having possibly wider canines, this would indicate the skull of the Bornean fossil was likely longer. Similarly, this comparative image (despite issues in inaccurate scale bars) indicates that Bornean mandible is a bit longer in the modified mandible length measurement:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Make sure to not confuse horizontal ramus height with ramus length. The P. fossilis-atrox group are superior to all tigers in proportional horizontal ramus height as such is a primitive trait of cats.
@epaiva was able to kindly share the comparative measurements of the his cast of the 467 mm P. atrox as well. Here is one of his photos with scale:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The modified mandible length is a few percent shorter compared to the Bornean fossil while the horizontal ramus length is comparable, indicating the Bornean fossil is likely from a skull of similar to a bit longer in size.
In sum, the skull was probably no less than 450 mm, and likely in the 470-480 mm range.
In comparison to the Ngandong tiger, here is a rough femoral length extrapolation. The Bornean fossil length is 1.5x the average tiger. The average femur length of a tiger (mixing genders) is 353 mm (n=19) (Christiansen and Adolfssen 2007). Extrapolating, the estimated femur length of the Bornean mandible would be 530 mm. My gut tells me this may be a bit of an overestimate as the tigers in Sherani (2019) may be a bit smaller than those in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007). Nonetheless, in femur length and thus body size the Bornean mandible would be a ways larger. Weight comparison is more complicated as we can't compare robustness between the specimens but just given how much longer and taller the Bornean specimen is, it is likely heavier than the largest Ngandong specimen.
Ok, that's it, I want to make a comparative image with this huge tiger! @tigerluver, can you provide me with the head-body, shoulder height, skull length and body mass estimated for this tiger? I want to make the comparison now that I have a little of time. By the way, do you think that we can use a Sunda tiger for comparative image, or a mainland tiger? I have two side-view images for that.
Head-body length based on the aforementioned calculation would be 260 cm. Using the data you compiled on tiger subspecies and having a weighted average of 175 cm body length for all 4 subspecies, the Bornean fossil's body length would be c. 260 cm (175 cm x 1.5). It seems shoulder height is half of body length generally, so that would be about c. 130 cm. Skull length from the above calculations would be c. 480 mm. We have an official peer-reviewed body weight of 480 kg (Sherani 2019). Looking forward to your work.
Either form of tiger as a representation should be fine. The PCA in Sherani (2019) did show that the tiger groups closer to P. t. corbetti and P. t. sumatrae and considering how young the specimen is, it likely had the color and large scruff of the island tigers.
(04-29-2020, 06:53 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Head-body length based on the aforementioned calculation would be 260 cm. Using the data you compiled on tiger subspecies and having a weighted average of 175 cm body length for all 4 subspecies, the Bornean fossil's body length would be c. 260 cm (175 cm x 1.5). It seems shoulder height is half of body length generally, so that would be about c. 130 cm. Skull length from the above calculations would be c. 480 mm. We have an official peer-reviewed body weight of 480 kg (Sherani 2019). Looking forward to your work.
Either form of tiger as a representation should be fine. The PCA in Sherani (2019) did show that the tiger groups closer to P. t. corbetti and P. t. sumatrae and considering how young the specimen is, it likely had the color and large scruff of the island tigers.
Thank you my friend. I am going to choose a beautiful Sumatran tiger that I have in my image-base. It will be incredible to see the size of this giant Bornean tiger compared with the Ngandong tiger and the Bengal tiger (I will choose this subspecies/population for obvious reasons).
(04-28-2020, 11:29 AM)tigerluver Wrote: I had some time and put together a size comparison of all known forms of tiger. For extant species, the size was based on Mazak (1981) and some data of @GuateGojira. The average size of a male of each extant (or recently extinct) form is represented. For the fossil tigers, the estimations were based as follows:
P. t. trinilensis: Based on a mandible just shy of 200 mm, which would be of a skull around 300 mm (the size of P. t. balica).
P. t. acutidens: Based on the upper p4s in Colbert and Hooijer. The p4 of 42 mm outsizes a 204 cm tiger (p4 38 mm - personal data and Christiansen and Harris, Christiansen and Adolfssen data). Thus the body length would be 220-225 cm.
P. t. soloensis: The 480 mm femur is ~1.15x longer than the average femur of 3 males in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007) that measured ~204 cm, for an estimated body length of ~235 cm.
P. t. ssp. (Pleistocene Borneo): The mandible is 1.27x longer than the mandible of a 380 mm Amur tiger skull published in Sherani (2019). It can be inferred this Amur tiger was at least as the three Christiansen and Adofssen (2007) males. Multiplying 1.27 by 204 cm we get a body length of ~260 cm.
Always open to refinements in scale and the subspecies sizes. @GuateGojira has a more thorough infographic of the measurements of extant subspecies, so the purpose of the following was to show how fossil tigers sized up in comparison. To enlarge the image, right click and choose "Open image in new tab".
*This image is copyright of its original author
Hope everyone is safe and well.
Good job @tigerluver. I am impresed with the size of the Pleistocene tiger of Borneo. This huge tiger is the equivalent of the Natodameri lion, I guess, because is so close to the modern species that still don't have they own "subspecies".
If is posible, can you send me the measurements of the mandible? You can do it trought personal message if you want it. I will like to add the other 4 prehistoric tigers to a new graphic.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Measurement methods:
*This image is copyright of its original author
ML should be 1-9 instead of 1-8.
What are the estimations for the total length of Pleistocene Bornean tiger skull?
There are no published estimates but I can show a few methods.
One way is to compare the average modified mandible length published, link that to the average skull length of all tigers, and then extrapolate the fossil's skull length. Four subspecies were used in comparative data of Sherani (2019), P. t. altaica, P. t. tigris, P. t. corbetti, and P. t. sumatrae. The average skull length of each species combining males and females are 332 mm, 325 mm, 310 mm, and 294 mm respectively. Counting the data points in Sherani (2019) figure 4, there are 3 specimens in group of P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, P. t. corbetti and 15 P. t. tigris. So the weighted average of the mandibles given the literature data described on skull would be 320 mm. The fossil is 1.5x than the average extant tiger in the data set. Multiply 1.5 by 320 we get an estimated skull length of 480 mm.
Another way to get a rough estimate is to compare to other giants. Compared to the 455 mm P. atrox skull, the canine of the Bornean fossil is ~16% longer. Even accounting for tigers having possibly wider canines, this would indicate the skull of the Bornean fossil was likely longer. Similarly, this comparative image (despite issues in inaccurate scale bars) indicates that Bornean mandible is a bit longer in the modified mandible length measurement:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Make sure to not confuse horizontal ramus height with ramus length. The P. fossilis-atrox group are superior to all tigers in proportional horizontal ramus height as such is a primitive trait of cats.
@epaiva was able to kindly share the comparative measurements of the his cast of the 467 mm P. atrox as well. Here is one of his photos with scale:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The modified mandible length is a few percent shorter compared to the Bornean fossil while the horizontal ramus length is comparable, indicating the Bornean fossil is likely from a skull of similar to a bit longer in size.
In sum, the skull was probably no less than 450 mm, and likely in the 470-480 mm range.
In comparison to the Ngandong tiger, here is a rough femoral length extrapolation. The Bornean fossil length is 1.5x the average tiger. The average femur length of a tiger (mixing genders) is 353 mm (n=19) (Christiansen and Adolfssen 2007). Extrapolating, the estimated femur length of the Bornean mandible would be 530 mm. My gut tells me this may be a bit of an overestimate as the tigers in Sherani (2019) may be a bit smaller than those in Christiansen and Adolfssen (2007). Nonetheless, in femur length and thus body size the Bornean mandible would be a ways larger. Weight comparison is more complicated as we can't compare robustness between the specimens but just given how much longer and taller the Bornean specimen is, it is likely heavier than the largest Ngandong specimen.
Ok, that's it, I want to make a comparative image with this huge tiger! @tigerluver, can you provide me with the head-body, shoulder height, skull length and body mass estimated for this tiger? I want to make the comparison now that I have a little of time. By the way, do you think that we can use a Sunda tiger for comparative image, or a mainland tiger? I have two side-view images for that.
Head-body length based on the aforementioned calculation would be 260 cm. Using the data you compiled on tiger subspecies and having a weighted average of 175 cm body length for all 4 subspecies, the Bornean fossil's body length would be c. 260 cm (175 cm x 1.5). It seems shoulder height is half of body length generally, so that would be about c. 130 cm. Skull length from the above calculations would be c. 480 mm. We have an official peer-reviewed body weight of 480 kg (Sherani 2019). Looking forward to your work.
Either form of tiger as a representation should be fine. The PCA in Sherani (2019) did show that the tiger groups closer to P. t. corbetti and P. t. sumatrae and considering how young the specimen is, it likely had the color and large scruff of the island tigers.
@tigerluver @GuateGojira
You are doing a incredible work with this giant Tiger, thanks for sharing with the Forum
