|
Wanhsien tiger ~
|
These Wanhsien tigers lived in China where the original brown bear lived which I refer to as the Chinese grizzly as I have yet to find any name attached to it. In fact, no information at all. Any idea the size of these bears that shared the land with the Wanhsien tiger?
 (09-10-2018, 10:06 AM)Wolverine Wrote:(09-09-2018, 10:14 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: To be honest, I think that even at double of the weight (260 kg againts 500 kg), tigers are a treath to any giant primate. If not, check some cases of leopards of 50-60 kg hunting an killing gorillas of 130 - 140 kg, which is the weight of a young male gorilla, a "black back". The canine teeth of the primate are not deeply rooted like that of the carnivora, so the fatality caused by the primate canine teeth cannot be compared those of the big cats. BTW, most fossils we came cross from the Pleistocene tigers were robust built in frame. (10-15-2018, 05:40 PM)brotherbear Wrote: These Wanhsien tigers lived in China where the original brown bear lived which I refer to as the Chinese grizzly as I have yet to find any name attached to it. In fact, no information at all. Any idea the size of these bears that shared the land with the Wanhsien tiger? Not much description about the fossils of these original grizzlies. I assume they were comparable to the modern grizzlies, and at some of period of time, more likely 300 kya, when they migrated to Europe, they suddenly magnified their size to the level of the Cave bear.  (10-15-2018, 11:10 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The canine teeth of the primate are not deeply rooted like that of the carnivora, so the fatality caused by the primate canine teeth cannot be compared those of the big cats. Yes, the canine teeth of primates even rival in size the canines of many big cats are actually created to inflict painful wounds in order to change the mind of the attacking predator, not to kill it. Actually such vegetarian apes as gorilla and orangutan probably don't know how to kill a big cat and they don't need to know. Omnivorous primates as chimpanzee and baboon who sometimes hunt however know how to make deadly bites. Giganto as vegeterian probably behaved as gorilla or orangutan. Nevertheless the big vegeterian apes including giganto have a formidable canines, gigantic bite force typical for all bamboo eating animals (jaw mussles responsible to grind bamboo are always very well developed) and exteemly high intelligence so for sure they are formidable adversaries for the big cats. Otherwise they would not survived among predators for millions of years.
http://www.newhistorian.com/tiger-huntin...lves/4376/
TIGER HUNTING STRATEGY AS OLD AS TIGERS THEMSELVES   (10-09-2019, 02:40 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Ngandong Tiger not eat alpha male gigantopithecus? Gigantophitecus blacki lived in mainland Asia, Ngandong tiger in the Sunda region, so no. Now, take in count that the new estimations of weight from the Gigantophitecus put it at about 300 kg, so the Ngandong tiger with over 360 kg will be heavier than the ape. For details on the size of the big ape, check this topic, post No. 15: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-prehistoric-apes Check this new ilustration from Luis Guardiola, big ape but with more slender body frame:  *This image is copyright of its original author
The most recent study showed that the Wanhsien fauna could be dated as early as from the middle early Pleistocene to the early middle Pleistocene.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-013-5839-6 This means the classic Wanhsien tiger in the old literature was probably over a million years old, and it represented an early offshoot of the tiger species, but the modern tigers probably did not directly evolve from them. (03-09-2020, 01:51 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: @GuateGojira Wow, very interesting. As far I know the large primate in Java was the Megantropus (a type of large Australopithecus), I will read the document for more information. Thank you for sharing.  Edit: I allready checked the document, and although it is not in English, the summary provide the conclution and the graphics show that the new specimens are closer to the Gigantopithecus than to the other primates. Only in the graphic 6 is that one of the new specimens match with Australopithecus, but all the others shows a clear affinity with Gigantopithecus. It is possible to you to tell me in what period are dated those fossils? I tried to search it in the document but I can't found it. This is in order to know if this primate shared its habitat with Panthera tigris trinilensis or Panthera tigris soloensis, or maybe the modern Panthera tigris sondaica. (03-09-2020, 08:35 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-09-2020, 01:51 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: @GuateGojira The Wanhsien tiger could live much earlier than we previously thought; from middle Early-Pleistocene to early Middle-Pleistocene. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81220308.pdf The skull also looked too fossilized to be something from the Late-Pleistocene. 
Hello first of all @GuateGojira @tigerluver
I will ask you a few questions.
(02-03-2022, 02:32 AM)tostwear Wrote: Hello first of all @GuateGojira @tigerluver Hello, here are my answers: 1. In theory, those tigers from Alaska should be P. t. acutidens, however, there is no formal description of the specimens, measurements or anything, appart from the metrical study of Sandra Herrington in 1987. Also, some of those specimens were used in genetic studies by Dr Ross Barnet and resulted that they are cave "lions" Panthera spelaea, so they affinity is still in dispute. 2. There are only fragments from skulls of this tiger subspecies and Colbert & Hooijer (1953) did not provided any measurements (or estimation at least) of this large fragments, except for the dentition, which is larger than any modern tiger. Now, Hooijer (1947) did reported a complete skull and a picture was provided, but again, he did not published any measurement from the skull, except from the dentition, upper and lower jaw. In the particular specimen A.M.N.H. No. 18624, the mandible measured c.215 mm, and if you compare it with the other tiger specimens in table 3 of his document, the skull probably measured slightly less than 330 mm, about the size of an average sized Indochinese tiger (328.6 mm). Using my equation of mandible-GSL I can calculate a GLS of c.325 mm, assuming that is a male. Average weight of the modern subspecies P. t. corbetti is of 191 kg in males, so about 185 kg will be a good weight estimation for this specimen, the only complete skull (for the moment).  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - As there are specimens that are larger than A.M.N.H. No. 18624, but that we only know the dentition, we can calculate a weight based on them. The largest specimen recorded (based in upper dentition) by Colbert & Hooijer (1953) is the A.M.N.H. 18678 which consist in a right upper Pm4, right lower canine, fragment of right mandibular ramus with lower pm3, pm4 (broken), right pm4 and left lower m1. The biggest specimen based in lower dentition is A.M.N.H. 18680 which correspond to a left upper canine, left upper Pm 4, maxillary fragment with right pm4, left lower canine, left pm4 and fragment of the right mandibular ramus with lower m 1. The important lengths are: A.M.N.H. 18678 Upper Pm 4: 42 mm length X 22 mm wide. Lower m 1: 30.8 mm length X 16 mm wide. A.M.N.H. 18680 Upper Pm 4: 37.8 mm length X 21.4 mm wide. Lower m 1: 31.0 mm length X 15.7 mm wide. Using dental formulas like Van Valkenburg (1991) and Legendre and Roth (1988) I calculated a body mass of 267 kg for these specimens with a probably maximum of up to 300 kg, taking in count that dentitions like this probably belonged to skulls of about 400 mm in GSL or slightly over that. Base on the evidence available in litterature, the Wanshien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) was of the same size as modern Bengal and Amur tigers, or maybe slightly bigger in the best of the cases. Now, there are several bones in private collections, including a huge skull that sadly are not available for study, so they are useless for conclutions. |
. So obviously the first version you mentioned - it weighted up to 600 kg (1300 pounds) or more is the only possible. And actually if I'm not wrong this version is latest (from 1990) while the version that it weighted only 300 kg is earlier (from 1970) so normally the latest scientific versions are more updated. 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |