The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)

[GrizzlyClaws]

(06-10-2022, 08:52 AM)jrocks Wrote:

(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

In fact, the 475 mm skull actually got smaller CLB and basal length than the 467.5 mm Panthera atrox skull.

The actual GSL of the Mokhnevskaya Cave skull could be around 460-465 mm.

Here is another giant Panthera spelaea skull from Romania with no official measurement. However, the fossil seller showed that skull is around 19 inches around the curve, so the GSL in straight line could be around 18 inches. So this one could also be closer in size to the Mokhnevskaya Cave skull.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Overall, in summary, we can conclude that those extremely large Panthera spelaea skulls can exceed 460 mm, which are comparable to those largest Panthera atrox skulls. Reply

[acutidens150]

Phys.org, article about the American lion and the Eurasian cave lion. 


(PhysOrg.com) -- The giant cats that roamed the British Isles, as well as Europe and North America, as recently as 13,000 years ago were lions rather than giant jaguars or tigers, a team led by Oxford University scientists has proved.


In order to determine the family tree of these cats, which lived in Britain during the Pleistocene (1.8 million years ago - 10,000 years ago), the team analysed DNA from fossils and other remains gathered from Germany to Siberia in Europe and Alaska to as far south as Wyoming in the USA. A report of the research is published in this week’s Molecular Ecology.



‘These ancient lions were like a super-sized version of today’s lions, up to 25 per cent bigger than those we know today and, in the Americas, with longer legs adapted for endurance running,’ said Dr Ross Barnett who conducted the work at Oxford University’s Department of Zoology. ‘What our genetic evidence shows is that these ancient extinct lions and the lions of today were very closely related. Meanwhile, cave art suggests that they formed prides, although the males appear not to have had manes.’



The team found that these Pleistocene lions could be divided into two genetically distinct sub-groups; lions that inhabited northern Eurasia as well as Alaska and the Yukon, and lions from the southern half of North America. 



'This unusual distribution is explained by Ice Age geography when a land bridge linked Siberia and Alaska, enabling ancient lions to cross from Eurasia into North America. At some point the North American ice sheets would have interrupted this migration route - creating these two genetically distinct groups of animals,’ said Dr Barnett.



The British and European lions and their American counterparts lived in a very different world from the African Savannah we associate with these big cats today: during the Pleistocene the UK landscape was more like the icy tundra of the modern Russian Steppe and was home to herds of large animals such as mammoth, woolly rhino and giant deer. 13,000 years ago the lions, along with all these giant herbivores, died out in a mass extinction.



"We still don’t know what caused this mass extinction, although it is likely that early humans were involved in one way or another,’ said co-author Dr Nobby Yamaguchi of Oxford University’s Wildlife Research Conservation Unit (the WildCRU). ‘But what our research does help with is building up a picture of how these large animals were faring before the extinction took place. In the case of these lions our analysis of mitochondrial DNA shows that 30-40,000 years before they became extinct they had lost a substantial part of their genetic diversity. This might be because of local extinctions and recolonisations of some areas, or because some lion groups had an advantage over others and replaced them - as yet we can’t be sure.’


Provided by Oxford University (news : web)



Dr. Ross Barnett and Dr. Nobby Yamaguchi.  Reply

[GuateGojira]

(07-03-2022, 12:31 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: Phys.org, article about the American lion and the Eurasian cave lion. 


(PhysOrg.com) -- The giant cats that roamed the British Isles, as well as Europe and North America, as recently as 13,000 years ago were lions rather than giant jaguars or tigers, a team led by Oxford University scientists has proved.


In order to determine the family tree of these cats, which lived in Britain during the Pleistocene (1.8 million years ago - 10,000 years ago), the team analysed DNA from fossils and other remains gathered from Germany to Siberia in Europe and Alaska to as far south as Wyoming in the USA. A report of the research is published in this week’s Molecular Ecology.



‘These ancient lions were like a super-sized version of today’s lions, up to 25 per cent bigger than those we know today and, in the Americas, with longer legs adapted for endurance running,’ said Dr Ross Barnett who conducted the work at Oxford University’s Department of Zoology. ‘What our genetic evidence shows is that these ancient extinct lions and the lions of today were very closely related. Meanwhile, cave art suggests that they formed prides, although the males appear not to have had manes.’






The team found that these Pleistocene lions could be divided into two genetically distinct sub-groups; lions that inhabited northern Eurasia as well as Alaska and the Yukon, and lions from the southern half of North America. 



'This unusual distribution is explained by Ice Age geography when a land bridge linked Siberia and Alaska, enabling ancient lions to cross from Eurasia into North America. At some point the North American ice sheets would have interrupted this migration route - creating these two genetically distinct groups of animals,’ said Dr Barnett.



The British and European lions and their American counterparts lived in a very different world from the African Savannah we associate with these big cats today: during the Pleistocene the UK landscape was more like the icy tundra of the modern Russian Steppe and was home to herds of large animals such as mammoth, woolly rhino and giant deer. 13,000 years ago the lions, along with all these giant herbivores, died out in a mass extinction.



"We still don’t know what caused this mass extinction, although it is likely that early humans were involved in one way or another,’ said co-author Dr Nobby Yamaguchi of Oxford University’s Wildlife Research Conservation Unit (the WildCRU). ‘But what our research does help with is building up a picture of how these large animals were faring before the extinction took place. In the case of these lions our analysis of mitochondrial DNA shows that 30-40,000 years before they became extinct they had lost a substantial part of their genetic diversity. This might be because of local extinctions and recolonisations of some areas, or because some lion groups had an advantage over others and replaced them - as yet we can’t be sure.’


Provided by Oxford University (news : web)



Dr. Ross Barnett and Dr. Nobby Yamaguchi. 

That article is from 2009 (https://phys.org/news/2009-03-scientists...sized.html). The last studies from 2016 showed that cave "lions" Panthera spelaea and American "lions" Panthera atrox were a completelly different species, alghouth closely related with lions. Reply

[acutidens150]

(07-04-2022, 08:38 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(07-03-2022, 12:31 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: Phys.org, article about the American lion and the Eurasian cave lion. 


(PhysOrg.com) -- The giant cats that roamed the British Isles, as well as Europe and North America, as recently as 13,000 years ago were lions rather than giant jaguars or tigers, a team led by Oxford University scientists has proved.


In order to determine the family tree of these cats, which lived in Britain during the Pleistocene (1.8 million years ago - 10,000 years ago), the team analysed DNA from fossils and other remains gathered from Germany to Siberia in Europe and Alaska to as far south as Wyoming in the USA. A report of the research is published in this week’s Molecular Ecology.



‘These ancient lions were like a super-sized version of today’s lions, up to 25 per cent bigger than those we know today and, in the Americas, with longer legs adapted for endurance running,’ said Dr Ross Barnett who conducted the work at Oxford University’s Department of Zoology. ‘What our genetic evidence shows is that these ancient extinct lions and the lions of today were very closely related. Meanwhile, cave art suggests that they formed prides, although the males appear not to have had manes.’






The team found that these Pleistocene lions could be divided into two genetically distinct sub-groups; lions that inhabited northern Eurasia as well as Alaska and the Yukon, and lions from the southern half of North America. 



'This unusual distribution is explained by Ice Age geography when a land bridge linked Siberia and Alaska, enabling ancient lions to cross from Eurasia into North America. At some point the North American ice sheets would have interrupted this migration route - creating these two genetically distinct groups of animals,’ said Dr Barnett.



The British and European lions and their American counterparts lived in a very different world from the African Savannah we associate with these big cats today: during the Pleistocene the UK landscape was more like the icy tundra of the modern Russian Steppe and was home to herds of large animals such as mammoth, woolly rhino and giant deer. 13,000 years ago the lions, along with all these giant herbivores, died out in a mass extinction.



"We still don’t know what caused this mass extinction, although it is likely that early humans were involved in one way or another,’ said co-author Dr Nobby Yamaguchi of Oxford University’s Wildlife Research Conservation Unit (the WildCRU). ‘But what our research does help with is building up a picture of how these large animals were faring before the extinction took place. In the case of these lions our analysis of mitochondrial DNA shows that 30-40,000 years before they became extinct they had lost a substantial part of their genetic diversity. This might be because of local extinctions and recolonisations of some areas, or because some lion groups had an advantage over others and replaced them - as yet we can’t be sure.’


Provided by Oxford University (news : web)



Dr. Ross Barnett and Dr. Nobby Yamaguchi. 

That article is from 2009 (https://phys.org/news/2009-03-scientists...sized.html). The last studies from 2016 showed that cave "lions" Panthera spelaea and American "lions" Panthera atrox were a completelly different species, alghouth closely related with lions.

Yes, I personally consulted him, he said although he agrees they are separate species. Reply

[Matias]

The Preliminary Analysis of Cave Lion Cubs Panthera spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810) from the Permafrost of Siberia

Quote:A preliminary description is presented of the well-preserved frozen mummies of two cubs of the extinct cave lion Panthera spelaea (finds of 2017–2018, Semyuelyakh River, Yakutia, eastern Siberia, Russia). The fossil lion cubs were found in close proximity, but they do not belong to the same litter, since their radiocarbon ages differ: the female (named ‘Sparta’) was dated to 27,962 ± 109 uncal years BP, and the male (named ‘Boris’) was dated to 43,448 ± 389 uncal years BP. The lion cubs have similar individual ages, 1–2 months. The general tone of the colour of the fur coat of Sparta is greyish to light brown, whereas, in Boris, the fur is generally lighter, greyish yellowish. It is, therefore, possible that light colouration prevailed with age in cave lions and was adaptive for northern snow-covered landscapes. The article discusses the results of computed tomography of cubs of the cave lion, the possible reasons for their death, and the peculiarities of their existence in the Siberian Arctic.

Reply

[acutidens150]

Alaskan cave lion skulls belonging to the Beringian lion (Panthera spealea vereschagini) had a different orbit formation to the european cave lions from the fossil skulls. The american lion and modern lion skull orbit is similar but Beringian lions orbit differs a bit. Reply

[LandSeaLion]

An interesting paper came out a few days ago on thr physiology of cave lions, and their observed trend of decreasing size with time:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10914-022-09635-3

“Decreasing size in the evolution of Panthera spelaea illustrated by skull length. Left column (males), from bottom to top: Château (from Argant and Argant, 2018: fig. 7); Petralona (from Baryshnikov and Tsoukala, 2010: fig. 21); San, Niedźwiedzia Cave, Siegsdorf (from Gross, 1992: fig. 1/11). Right column, bottom: Mauer. Right column (females), bottom to top: Zandobbio (from Bona, 2006 fig. 1B); Srbsko Chlum-Komín (from Diedrich 2007: fig. 5A); Kryshtaleva Cave (this study).”

*This image is copyright of its original author

“Size comparison of Ukrainian lions and the extant southern lion. a. Pathera spelaea spelaea (♀) from Kryshtaleva Cave; b. Panthera spelaea fossilis (♂) from Sambir; c. Panthera leo persica (♂) from Mayaki; d. Pathera spelaea spelaea (♂) from Chernihiv; e. Panthera leo melanochaita (Smith, 1842) (♀) from Kruger National Park; f. Panthera leo melanochaita (♂) from Kruger National Park. Shown to the same scale. Drawings by W. Gornig.”

*This image is copyright of its original author

Their estimate for the truly enormous Sambir lion (top-right in the drawing above) is upwards of 500kg - however, there are no details on how they calculated this estimate. Its projected body mass varied wildly between different skeletal and dental indicators (over 900kg for cranial or post-cranial, vs ~350-440kg for m1L/m1LxB):

”An estimate for the Sambir lion (based on calcaneus length) looks less reliable than that inferred from m1 size. However, the latter is probably underestimated and the Sambir lion might have had a body mass exceeding 500 kg. It is unlikely that this value represents the extreme upper mass range, as in the case of record-sized individuals of living felids. Such exceptional specimens are too rare to appear in the fossil record (Christiansen and Harris 2009; Wheeler and Jefferson 2009).” Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

This brand new article does sum up a couple of our arguments quite well:

- The previously designated Holocene European lion (Panthera leo europaea) was de facto a population of the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo leo/Panthera leo persica) that expanded across Balkans to Iberia.

- The lion was the larger cat from early Pleistocene to middle Pleistocene, whereas tiger started to gain the upper hand in late Pleistocene through Holocene.

- The rise of the human civilization was deemed as the main factor that stopped the expansion of the modern lion (Panthera leo), that's why they never had a chance to spread into the heartland of Europe. Reply

[hibernours]

I don't know if this paper has already been posted i haven't read all the posts about this thread but for those who are interested in making a reconstitution about prehistoric lions, here is a paper which describes a method and some values about the shoulder height of Panthera Spelaea: 
Did the pleistocene lion, Panthera Spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810), have the same body proportions as modern lions, Panthera Leo (Linnaeus, 1758)? A preliminary study. Charles Schouwenburg - 2011.

It seems that the largest specimen of the sample had a humerus which was 396 mm in length and a shoulder height around 110 cm according to the author.

The Panthera spelaea fossilis from Sambir was larger without any doubt but the last image (message 427) seems a bit exaggerated so maybe someone could try to estimate the shoulder height of the enormous specimen based on the paper i provided if he has enough data about limb bones... Reply

[GuateGojira]

(11-18-2022, 04:52 AM)LandSeaLion Wrote: “Size comparison of Ukrainian lions and the extant southern lion. a. Pathera spelaea spelaea (♀) from Kryshtaleva Cave; b. Panthera spelaea fossilis (♂) from Sambir; c. Panthera leo persica (♂) from Mayaki; d. Pathera spelaea spelaea (♂) from Chernihiv; e. Panthera leo melanochaita (Smith, 1842) (♀) from Kruger National Park; f. Panthera leo melanochaita (♂) from Kruger National Park. Shown to the same scale. Drawings by W. Gornig.”

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Their estimate for the truly enormous Sambir lion (top-right in the drawing above) is upwards of 500kg - however, there are no details on how they calculated this estimate. Its projected body mass varied wildly between different skeletal and dental indicators (over 900kg for cranial or post-cranial, vs ~350-440kg for m1L/m1LxB):

”An estimate for the Sambir lion (based on calcaneus length) looks less reliable than that inferred from m1 size. However, the latter is probably underestimated and the Sambir lion might have had a body mass exceeding 500 kg. It is unlikely that this value represents the extreme upper mass range, as in the case of record-sized individuals of living felids. Such exceptional specimens are too rare to appear in the fossil record (Christiansen and Harris 2009; Wheeler and Jefferson 2009).”

The size of the Sambir lion is greatly exagerated here, no cat will weight more than 450 kg (the Smilodon populator mark) and 500 kg is out of question, that is for sure, and probably the 400 kg will be the mark for the biggest Panthera specimens.

I was checking the document and they based they conclutions in a single lower molar 1 (dentitions as we know, is not a good size/weight predictor). The greatest length of this lower m1 is of 34.7 mm (which is from where the autors are basing the body mass and also body size), now compare it with the biggest lower m1 for Panthera atrox which is of 33.9 mm, and for Panthera tigris acutidens which is of 31.2 mm (Ngandong tiger and Pleistocene Bornean tiger had probably bigger dentition, but as we know, lions and lion-like cats had comparativelly bigger dentition than similar sized tigers), the difference is not as extreme as we could think, and none of these two giant cats surpassed the 360 kg. Also, we need to remember that dentition is very variable, specially in lion and lion-like cats, which has been showed in previous studies. So, while this single lower molar 1 suggest a big specimen, it could be no larger than the biggest Panthera atrox from America (which is already a great feat).

The estimated body size of 140 cm in height and 250 - 270 cm seems exagerated, remember that the largest Panthera atrox was estimated at 125 cm in height and 250 cm in head-body, so the Sambir lion could be about the same size (34.7 vrs 33.9 mm is nothing), but not as long as 270 cm, that is out of question. Also, check that while Marciszak et al. (2022) estimate a shoulder heigh of 130 cm for the Aze specimen, Schouwenburg (2011), using a reliable comparison method with real specimens as surrogates got a shoulder height of 109.3 cm for the same specimen, about 16% less than the other estimation; please check that Marciszak and team do not explain what method used to estimate the size, and also they did not use the method of Schouwenburg (2011) because they probably don't even knew about it.

In conclution, based in the evidence, intraespecific variation, previous related specimens and different methods, the body size and weight estimated by the Sambir lion by Marciszak et al. (2022) is greatly exagerated, and probably weighed around 370 - 380 kg (at the best), and a body size about the same as the similarly sized Panthera atrox (heigh of 125 cm and head-body of 250 cm, in maximum values). Reply

[GuateGojira]

(06-22-2023, 02:15 AM)hibernours Wrote: I don't know if this paper has already been posted i haven't read all the posts about this thread but for those who are interested in making a reconstitution about prehistoric lions, here is a paper which describes a method and some values about the shoulder height of Panthera Spelaea: 
Did the pleistocene lion, Panthera Spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810), have the same body proportions as modern lions, Panthera Leo (Linnaeus, 1758)? A preliminary study. Charles Schouwenburg - 2011.

It seems that the largest specimen of the sample had a humerus which was 396 mm in length and a shoulder height around 110 cm according to the author.

The Panthera spelaea fossilis from Sambir was larger without any doubt but the last image (message 427) seems a bit exaggerated so maybe someone could try to estimate the shoulder height of the enormous specimen based on the paper i provided if he has enough data about limb bones...

Thank you very much for this document. I used it right now and proved to be very usefull.

Check my conclutions about the Sambir lion in my previous post. Reply

[hibernours]

(06-30-2023, 03:30 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(11-18-2022, 04:52 AM)LandSeaLion Wrote: “Size comparison of Ukrainian lions and the extant southern lion. a. Pathera spelaea spelaea (♀) from Kryshtaleva Cave; b. Panthera spelaea fossilis (♂) from Sambir; c. Panthera leo persica (♂) from Mayaki; d. Pathera spelaea spelaea (♂) from Chernihiv; e. Panthera leo melanochaita (Smith, 1842) (♀) from Kruger National Park; f. Panthera leo melanochaita (♂) from Kruger National Park. Shown to the same scale. Drawings by W. Gornig.”

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Their estimate for the truly enormous Sambir lion (top-right in the drawing above) is upwards of 500kg - however, there are no details on how they calculated this estimate. Its projected body mass varied wildly between different skeletal and dental indicators (over 900kg for cranial or post-cranial, vs ~350-440kg for m1L/m1LxB):

”An estimate for the Sambir lion (based on calcaneus length) looks less reliable than that inferred from m1 size. However, the latter is probably underestimated and the Sambir lion might have had a body mass exceeding 500 kg. It is unlikely that this value represents the extreme upper mass range, as in the case of record-sized individuals of living felids. Such exceptional specimens are too rare to appear in the fossil record (Christiansen and Harris 2009; Wheeler and Jefferson 2009).”

The size of the Sambir lion is greatly exagerated here, no cat will weight more than 450 kg (the Smilodon populator mark) and 500 kg is out of question, that is for sure, and probably the 400 kg will be the mark for the biggest Panthera specimens.

I was checking the document and they based they conclutions in a single lower molar 1 (dentitions as we know, is not a good size/weight predictor). The greatest length of this lower m1 is of 34.7 mm (which is from where the autors are basing the body mass and also body size), now compare it with the biggest lower m1 for Panthera atrox which is of 33.9 mm, and for Panthera tigris acutidens which is of 31.2 mm (Ngandong tiger and Pleistocene Bornean tiger had probably bigger dentition, but as we know, lions and lion-like cats had comparativelly bigger dentition than similar sized tigers), the difference is not as extreme as we could think, and none of these two giant cats surpassed the 360 kg. Also, we need to remember that dentition is very variable, specially in lion and lion-like cats, which has been showed in previous studies. So, while this single lower molar 1 suggest a big specimen, it could be no larger than the biggest Panthera atrox from America (which is already a great feat).

The estimated body size of 140 cm in height and 250 - 270 cm seems exagerated, remember that the largest Panthera atrox was estimated at 125 cm in height and 250 cm in head-body, so the Sambir lion could be about the same size (34.7 vrs 33.9 mm is nothing), but not as long as 270 cm, that is out of question. Also, check that while Marciszak et al. (2022) estimate a shoulder heigh of 130 cm for the Aze specimen, Schouwenburg (2011), using a reliable comparison method with real specimens as surrogates got a shoulder height of 109.3 cm for the same specimen, about 16% less than the other estimation; please check that Marciszak and team do not explain what method used to estimate the size, and also they did not use the method of Schouwenburg (2011) because they probably don't even knew about it.

In conclution, based in the evidence, intraespecific variation, previous related specimens and different methods, the body size and weight estimated by the Sambir lion by Marciszak et al. (2022) is greatly exagerated, and probably weighed around 370 - 380 kg (at the best), and a body size about the same as the similarly sized Panthera atrox (heigh of 125 cm and head-body of 250 cm, in maximum values).

I completely agree with you, thank you very much for your calculations. I don't know well the body proportions about prehistoric big cats but the pictures seemed to me greatly exagerated like you said. People don't realize that a big cat weighting around 350 kg is really an impressive animal, no need to fabricate 500kg big cats, it is for now quite fanciful. Concerning Smilodon populator, i think in term of linear dimensions it was not as big as the largest specimens of Panthera fossilis or Panthera atrox and as far as i can remember, there is not a big difference in term of thickness about limb bones. So i don't understand how some people can claim that Smilodon populator could reach 130cm in height for the largest specimens... Reply

[GuateGojira]

(06-30-2023, 05:26 AM)hibernours Wrote: Concerning Smilodon populator, i think in term of linear dimensions it was not as big as the largest specimens of Panthera fossilis or Panthera atrox and as far as i can remember, there is not a big difference in term of thickness about limb bones. So i don't understand how some people can claim that Smilodon populator could reach 130cm in height for the largest specimens...

Smilodon is still a mistery for me, as they are not like our modern cats, they morphology was different and the robustness of they bones were incredible. As you say, probably only the biggest cave lions and tigers could mach them, but the point is that when we compare they bones, Smilodon ones match them despite they size differences.

I could say that Smilodon were like tanks, they laked the gracile form of the Pantherines and Felines, they had short but robust heads and very powerfull limbs with relatively short bodies. 

I don't remember my last estimation, I think that was 120 cm in shoulder height, based in the calculation of the known specimens before 2019, but since the discovery of the new skull in 2020, some people extrapolate this new animal and at least one reconstruction put it at 130 cm in height. This is the two images that I have in my database:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is an image made by me, these are the biggest skull for each species and the difference is not as dramatic as we may think:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply