WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Extinct Animals
›
Pleistocene Big Cats
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
|
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
|
The fossils/subfossils are completely dehydrated compared to the modern canines, that's why it could be a bit lighter as well.
(09-28-2015, 04:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Fieryeel's larger canine: Density = 0.0520 (133 / 96)^3 * 46 = 122.32 grams And the larger one is 128 grams, so the density of his two canines are symmetrically similar, but not identical. 
I subconsciously used @Fieryeel's earlier canine height of 13.5 cm, so that's why I got that number. Looking at the photo, from point to point, the canine does look to be 13.5 cm, but regardless, the differences are insignificant.
For my final verdict, I feel these are both tiger teeth. I've browsed through seal skulls and they just don't match. The size variation is normal, especially considering the fact that it seems, the minimums and maximums within a species were more different back then than we find today (Gruwier et al. 2015 found this in a few deer species, for example). I believe the mortality rate for juveniles is quite high as well, so if you think about it, there should also be a high chance of finding a good amount of sub-adult specimens as fossils.
Maybe he has later measured it with a caliper, hence the exact length has been corrected.
(09-28-2015, 06:01 AM)tigerluver Wrote: For my final verdict, I feel these are both tiger teeth. I've browsed through seal skulls and they just don't match. The size variation is normal, especially considering the fact that it seems, the minimums and maximums within a species were more different back then than we find today (Gruwier et al. 2015 found this in a few deer species, for example). I believe the mortality rate for juveniles is quite high as well, so if you think about it, there should also be a high chance of finding a good amount of sub-adult specimens as fossils. The longest Panthera teeth (in both fossil and modern) are always found in the places like China and Java, because these fangs are tiger fangs, hence it is always longer than other Panthera members'. And the chance of having the sub-adult fossils is very probable, consider there are also many Cave lions with a cavity found in their broken canines, so these fossils are very likely belonged to the young adult specimens.  (09-26-2015, 10:21 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(09-26-2015, 08:55 AM)genao87 Wrote: 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. @Tiger Luver, my apologies then if that wasn't you before. However I could of sworn there was two of you guys since some of these usernames were kind of similar. However good to see you again or is it the first time, lol. So what you are saying that the past Amur fossils even though few, you seem to point that this Tiger was more in the South China region that later became our smaller version Amur? ....Good to hear about the sagittal crest Guate, I always wonder why they were so much larger in the Amur/Caspain (I thought these two were the same Tiger subspecies) than in Bengal. Maybe this is one reason why the Roman Gladiator documents that Big Bad Brody gave us had Amur/Caspain Tigers winning most battles against other big cats, including lions. Thanks Guate, interesting to note I was reading some data that the Ngandong Tiger was roughly 500kg, rivaling that of Smilodon Populator. Looking at your pic that Ngandong Tiger looks massive though pound for pound had a slighter weaker skull than Bengal/Amur? I hope that is not the Godzilla affect as you proclaim....seems so but checking out your graphs, 500kg doesnt seem to far off...maybe to some freakish size Ngandong Tiger. I remember a poster name Waverider kind of fighting large Tiger estimates. No offense to him but he seems to ignore isometric/allometric calculations and relying (at least to me) on old metric/data from a while a back. Seeing your graphs helps confirm this 25-35% larger size that I heard from long ago. Who was that guy that mentioned that? After all the crazyness that I went through in these lion vs tiger debates, turns out that man was right all along...whoever he was. I kind of remember On a side note, with this link, http://17thstreet.net/2014/08/16/legenda...-part-two/ has the American Lion/P. Atrox and Cave Lion finally been proven that they are not lions?
@genao87:
The current consensus is that the South China tiger was the stem tiger, at least for the Amur, Bengal, and Indochinese subspecies, which split 10,000 years ago. The fossil Chinese tigers in museums were found more toward central and south China than the Amur's modern range. Moreover, these fossil tigers, skull wise, look like a South China tiger rather than an Amur. Regarding the size, the issue started when everyone figured out Anyonge equations (the equation used to give the original 470 kg) were overestimating mass. Anyonge made a major mistake, he took literature, like Mazak's 325 kg Amur record for example, and applied it to any bone he found in museum collections. (he didn't necessarily use these numbers exactly, but the idea is the same). One can see the problem with this method. Dr. Chrisiansen did the heavy lifting, contacted some zoos, and found tiger skeletons with live weights attached. These produced the most reliable equations to date. It's no secret that prehistoric tigers are my greatest interest, so once I was able to work with professors, I ventured to try and get my own analysis of the species' morphology. I found a couple of extra with weights attached at the Smithsonian, and I added them to Christiansen's database to formulate a tiger specific set of allometric equations. I then acquired the original book that published the Ngandong tiger fossils and took extra measurements, finding that the bones are (or maybe were, as not a soul can seem to find where these bones went, including Phds. I've contacted, and the museum doesn't seem to have an accessible collections correspondence) more robust than usual for a tiger. From that, the numbers gave me a high end value of 470 kg or over (again, I can't give exacts). This has taken me about 2 years, it is extremely hard to get data on Asian fossils, and the specimens I need for equations just don't exist in the US (as a result, Anyonge, van Valkenburg, Figuerido et al., and many others used the problematic methods for equations). The American and Cave lions are most closely related to the lion. Christiansen stated otherwise, but the vast majority of researchers have reason to reject these theories. Judging by the fact that the stem group of cave lions and modern lions all came from Africa, it is probably correct to assume that these were part of the lion clad, but not necessarily a subspecies of lion.
Based on this Bengal skull, its canine measures 12 cm and weighs 62 grams, so it is mostly a young specimen (about 80 grams for an older specimen), and the skull weighs 1828 grams or 4 pounds.
http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-t...rs?page=20 If the Solo River tooth is 128 grams, then its upper canine should weigh about 200 grams, and the skull should be 19 inches long and weigh about 10 pounds based on the same proportion. This Ngandong tiger should have a skull that rivals the large modern Ursidae.
@Tiger Luver, damn what a quick reply..Im typing this at 1am in the morning. Must be a different time zone for you or you can't sleep like me.
Grizz, is that helping to confirm freakazoid large Ngandong Tiger? 500kg worthy :)
Maybe 1000 pounds? Since the body mass can weigh 100 times as the skull based on the symmetric proportion.
 (09-28-2015, 10:19 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Maybe 1000 pounds? Since the body mass can weigh 100 times as the skull based on the symmetric proportion. Species gender body weight skull length skull weight remarks P. onca ♀ 045 kg. 236,56 0,550 kg. Black female killed by a male jaguar during courtship in a zoo. P. leo ♂ 280 kg. 378,00 2,450 kg. Large prime male lion killed during transport to a Dutch zoo. P. leo ♂ 160 kg. 362,92 1,755 kg. Died of old age in a German zoo. He was large in his prime. P.t. tigris ♀ 081 kg. 297,60 0,975 kg. Died of old age in a Dutch zoo. P.t. tigris ♀ 105 kg. 308,54 1,194 kg. Died of an unknown disease in her prime in a German zoo. P.t. tigris ♂ 122 kg. 313,60 1,260 kg. Born blind in a Dutch zoo and died at an early age as an adult. P.t. tigris ♂ 104 kg. 348,00 1,390 kg. Disabled male tiger. The animal died of old age in a Dutch zoo. P.t. tigris ♂ - 412,75 2,211 kg. Shot in his prime by the daughter of Sir J. Hewett. The tiger was 10.2 'over curves'. These are the only ones of which I have data regarding body mass, greatest total skull length and skull weight. Apart from the last, all animals were born in captivity. The last most probably is representative to a degree regarding skull weight and body mass. Hewett wrote it was the finest male tiger he saw. Based on the data of others of similar length I have (same region), my guess is he could have been close to 500 pounds empty (226,80 kg.). This means his mass could have been 100-110 times the weight of his skull. The skull was measured and weighed by a professional taxidermist (Van Ingen), meaning length and weight are reliable. Compared to other skulls of wild Indian tigers, the skull is very long and light. The captive male lion was measured and weighed by Dr. P. van Bree. He said it was the largest captive big cat he had seen. At 216,70 cm. in head and body length measured in a straight line, this giant compared to the largest wild tigers I know of. His skull, however, was a bit disappointing in both length and width. Also, the weight of the skull is unreliable. It was much discoloured because of the fat and I had to wash my hands every time I touched it. When in good shape, the skull, for weight, could have been similar to the skull of the Indian tiger Hewett's daughter shot in northern India. The old male lion who died in a German zoo (the one with a skull weight of 1,755 kg.) was healthy. Same for the female black jaguar. The tigers in the table above, however, were not. One was born lame, the other was born blind and the two females also struggled with a persistent cough. I noticed time and again that captive tigers often do not compare to their wild relatives. Not even close, they said a century ago. Many succumb to diseases well before their time and even those that get to 10 often are thin as a rail. I don't know why that is, but inbreeding could be a reason, especially in zoos. Circus tigers do way better (I saw large and healthy tigers over 13 more than once), but this door now has been closed. Over here, it was decided that wild animals can't be used in the circus anymore. Lions apparently don't need the circus to stay fit. For some reason, they do quite well in captivity. I've seen plenty of lions between 15-20 and even at a great age they seldom completely desintegrate. Most males over 15 still get to 150 kg. and I saw a few close to 200 kg. when they had to be put down. In many cases, they ended with problems also seen in very old humans. One could say that Hewett's tiger suggests that the weight of the skull of a healthy wild male tiger in his prime is about 1% of his body mass, but this particular tiger, although long, had a narrow and light skull. My guess is the ratio is different in other wild male tigers. As to extinct big cats. I saw a number of skulls, but not those of P. atrox. I noticed many were moderately long, narrow and, in particular, not as massive as those of modern big cats. Same for the teeth (and the canines in particular). The ratio (skull weight - body mass) no doubt would have been quite different if males of large species, as many think, really exceeded 300 kg. at a regular basis. I don't exclude they could have been large, as there were plenty of very large herbivores back then. When large herbivores became more scarce as a result of the climate changes, however, they would have had to adapt to smaller animals. My guess is they would have struggled to maintain their mass. Slashing a hapless giant taken down and kept down by a group is easier than hunting a stocky and agile opponent able to take damage on your own. In order to succeed, you definitely need a skull able to endure pressure. Not a large one, as too heavy, but a compact and wide skull. Smaller cats with small but massive skulls and conical teeth long enough to reach vital organs quickly would no doubt outcompete larger relatives in the long run. A tiger will never thrive in a region with small game, but a lynx would and the outcome of the struggle for survival would be predictable. Unless the big cat can adapt, of course. This is what we see in regions where large animals have disappeared (islands in particular) or where they have become so scarce that hunting just doesn't pay anymore. Lions, living in prides, probably don't need to adapt to the same degree when faced with similar problems. As long as there's a few big animals around, they can stick together and give it a try. They would need more territory to do so, but border problems can be solved by numbers and it beats adapting to baboons or mice. Pride life, I think, is the main reason they show less variation at the level of individuals in that there's no clear reward. The ultimate hunters probably were and are medium-sized cats (from lynx to leopard). They thrive where large specialists struggle and when these disappear completely, they take their place by adding a few inches and pounds. Happened with leopards in Shri Lanka and Iran and, longer ago, those inhabiting the tropical forests in central Africa and it will no doubt happen again in regions where lions and tigers have been pushed out or exterminated. Back to extinct big cats to finish with. I don't doubt some were very large as a result of walking mountains of meat at every doorstep. At their size they would have needed large bones, but I wouldn't get to conclusions on them and today's big cats using bones only. In hunting skill, there probably was no comparison. A true hunter, in excellent conditions, could perhaps exceed 250 kg. empty every now and then in some regions, but bears, more massive than big cats, say this is about the limit. There are no terrestrial true hunters over 300 kg., only would-be hunters and omnivores. My guess is it wasn't much different a million years ago.
I've allegedly heard about the tiger canine teeth that measure over 15 cm long and weigh over 200 grams in the Harbin breeding center, although I prefer to have the pic of these giant fangs on a weight scale and in between a caliper.
Based on the symmetric proportion, a 200 grams tooth could point toward a 10 pounds skull, but this might be a bit too much for a modern big cat, unless it is a freakish specimen like Baikal. The heaviest skull for both modern lion and tiger should max at around 6.5 pounds.
@peter, you've piqued my interest, how do you define "terrestrial true hunter?" Also, I'm guessing the extinct cat skulls you have seen belong to P. spelaea?
Also, as a word of caution, skull to body weight is probably the one of the worse mass estimators in itself. Just looking at the data kindly provided by @peter, one can see without even a plot the R^2 squarely for the ratios would be abysmal. One can't logically log or natural log scale the values either, as theoretically, mass should go with mass, but it doesn't in this case. At the same time, the skull density may be of use in applying correction factors long bone estimates to some degree as well. Just not enough research to test this hypothesis. (09-28-2015, 11:37 PM)tigerluver Wrote: @peter, you've piqued my interest, how do you define "terrestrial true hunter?" Also, I'm guessing the extinct cat skulls you have seen belong to P. spelaea? Do you mean this one? This skull was found in the locality near to the Wanhsien county, it is no doubt a classic Wanhsien tiger.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
I was actually referring to skulls in museum that I thought @peter witnessed. Maybe he meant these skulls, but I didn't translate it as that.
Every time I see that fossil you just posted @GrizzlyClaws, I die a little inside. On another note, do the carnassials look huge for that skull's size or is it just camera angle? I never noticed that before. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |