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.
Hello, I have some questions for @GuateGojira @tigerluver
•The skull of the natodomeri lion is 460mm? and exactly how big is this individual with a 460mm skull?
• Is the cave lion species Panthera spelaea intermedia with a 475mm long skull? and I found this fossil to be 395-400kg, do you think this estimate is correct?
(02-12-2022, 05:12 PM)Amphi Wrote: Hello, I have some questions for @GuateGojira @tigerluver
•The skull of the natodomeri lion is 460mm? and exactly how big is this individual with a 460mm skull?
• Is the cave lion species Panthera spelaea intermedia with a 475mm long skull? and I found this fossil to be 395-400kg, do you think this estimate is correct?
1. I came up with the 460 mm estimate a few years back. However, it seems it may be slightly off as the 454 mm P. atrox has a larger basal length. From Gross (1992) data, the GSL/BL ratio in lions is about 1.17 so the GSL would be probably 440-450 mm. Certainly in the 300-400 kg range.
2. The 475 mm skull is temporaly P. spelaea spelaea. 400 kg is within the confidence interval but maybe on the high side at P. spelaea had proportionately larger skull for their bodies (unlike extant felid). What was your calculation?
(01-22-2022, 08:41 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: I've come to know of "Panthera spelaea intermedia"; is this a confirmed subspecies?
This was introducted by Argant and Brugal (2017) and Marciszak and colleagues have carried it forward. This theory does fit if we consider the ~2 mya P. leo-spelaea divergence date however if the split is younger (~500 kya), then P. fossilis would likely be a separate species. A recent abstract endorsed the latter so there is still not consensus on the taxonomy.
02-13-2022, 06:49 AM( This post was last modified: 02-13-2022, 06:51 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
The Panthera spelaea skull still looks like a lion skull with enlarged muzzle, and it still got quite different vibe to the actual Pleistocene tiger despite both cats were characterized with extremely robust features.
The Panthera spelaea skull is proportionally longer in its facial structure, and it is also less vaulted compared to the Pleistocene tiger skull.
(02-13-2022, 02:23 AM)Amphi Wrote: The size of the 475mm long skull in a discord group I entered
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The issue with GDI is the subjectivity of reconstruction. Here, it seems the depth is too great considering the pelvis diameter proportion per Gross (1992) is not really different from that of P. leo.
06-10-2022, 08:52 AM( This post was last modified: 06-10-2022, 08:53 AM by jrocks )
(03-14-2019, 08:37 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(03-14-2019, 05:46 AM)tigerluver Wrote: With the chart of the M1 length of the lions of Imani cave, we may be able to estimate the length of this mandible:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The largest M1 from the following chart is 33.4 mm:
*This image is copyright of its original author
From the photo, the mandible length to M1 length ratio is just about 9. If we assume that mandible is the owner of the largest M1 from the above chart, it would measure about 300 mm as is. The complete mandible (incisors to condyloid process) is about 5% more so if complete it would have measured about 315 mm. The M1 length of 33.4 mm is also comparable to the 309.5 mm (M1 33.4 mm, GSL 458 mm) and 318 mm (M1 33.9 mm 467.5 mm) P. atrox specimens. The other teeth grouped by the authors to be male should also be from mandibles no less than 280 mm.
The faunal level of these specimens was dated to the middle of the Late Pleistocene, so at least by temporal classification, these would be considered P. spelaea. A morphological analysis would help to classify these specimens with greater confidence. Assuming these are what is considered P. spelaea, there is no reason to believe that the P. atrox of Rancho La Brea were any larger. Remember, like in modern big cats, there are clinal variations in size. The P. spelaea that were historically considered to be not as large may have simply represented a smaller sized clinal variation.
Even in Europe, specimens comparable to the biggest of the P. atrox existed. From Alan Stout, here is a specimen a bit shorter than 300 mm from Romania (link):
*This image is copyright of its original author
All in all, post-cranial remains are skewed toward certain populations, perhaps falsely giving the perception of smaller size in P. spelaea. Perhaps the species underwent fluctuations in size through time as well.
Is there any contemporary fossil nearby that has been documented to be larger than the giant 475 mm skull from Mokhnevskaya cave?
Compared to the giant humerus of Panthera fossilis from Central Europe to the giant tiger mandible, which specimen got an upper hand?
same i was also curious about that in the freak felids thread, i wonder if theres been any cave lion fossils that have been documented to be bigger than that 475 mm skull
(03-14-2019, 05:46 AM)tigerluver Wrote: With the chart of the M1 length of the lions of Imani cave, we may be able to estimate the length of this mandible:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The largest M1 from the following chart is 33.4 mm:
*This image is copyright of its original author
From the photo, the mandible length to M1 length ratio is just about 9. If we assume that mandible is the owner of the largest M1 from the above chart, it would measure about 300 mm as is. The complete mandible (incisors to condyloid process) is about 5% more so if complete it would have measured about 315 mm. The M1 length of 33.4 mm is also comparable to the 309.5 mm (M1 33.4 mm, GSL 458 mm) and 318 mm (M1 33.9 mm 467.5 mm) P. atrox specimens. The other teeth grouped by the authors to be male should also be from mandibles no less than 280 mm.
The faunal level of these specimens was dated to the middle of the Late Pleistocene, so at least by temporal classification, these would be considered P. spelaea. A morphological analysis would help to classify these specimens with greater confidence. Assuming these are what is considered P. spelaea, there is no reason to believe that the P. atrox of Rancho La Brea were any larger. Remember, like in modern big cats, there are clinal variations in size. The P. spelaea that were historically considered to be not as large may have simply represented a smaller sized clinal variation.
Even in Europe, specimens comparable to the biggest of the P. atrox existed. From Alan Stout, here is a specimen a bit shorter than 300 mm from Romania (link):
*This image is copyright of its original author
All in all, post-cranial remains are skewed toward certain populations, perhaps falsely giving the perception of smaller size in P. spelaea. Perhaps the species underwent fluctuations in size through time as well.
Is there any contemporary fossil nearby that has been documented to be larger than the giant 475 mm skull from Mokhnevskaya cave?
Compared to the giant humerus of Panthera fossilis from Central Europe to the giant tiger mandible, which specimen got an upper hand?
same i was also curious about that in the freak felids thread, i wonder if theres been any cave lion fossils that have been documented to be bigger than that 475 mm skull
Officially, there is no Panthera spelaea skull being documented bigger than the 475 mm one.
The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)
