WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Extinct Animals
›
Pleistocene Big Cats
The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)
The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)
|
The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)
|
 (11-02-2018, 12:13 PM)Spalea Wrote: We know that African lions and Asiatic Lions cannot reproduce together. Some Indian zoos director tried to do that, total failure, the engendered individuals were defect, flaw... Thus we can almost already say that African and Asiatic lions are two dictint species. Because that is that, the specy definition isn' t ? The reproduction ability between males and females within this same specy... In fact is all the contrary. The Indian lion project in European Zoos was canceled because its members were Asiatic-African hybrids. Also there are many "mix" lions, clasify as "Barbary" but at the end are just a soup of genes from different areas. So Asiatic lions and African lions can reproduce perfectly, just like Indian/Amur tigers can reproduce with Sumatran tigers and produce interesting hybrids. Even worst, these African/Asian lion hybrids can reproduce perfectly and that is why many captive lion populations are wortless for conservation; ligers (males at least) can't reproduce as they born sterile. (11-02-2018, 04:36 PM)Spalea Wrote: About #185: you put the dogs and the panthera felidae(s) on the same classification level as the dogs. Why not ? It's clear for me there is not one single specy of what we call dog. You take together a shepherd dog and a terrier dog, nothing happens... The dogs are considered by the scientists as a group called "canis lupus familiaris", this group and the "canis lupus" group forming a part of the canidae(s), I presume... The example of @Shadow about the dogs, in fact, shows a contrary case from that of lions. If you take the skulls of all the dogs, you will see incredible diferences, some even grossly differente that looks like completelly different animals, some dogs can be clasify as "shepards", others like "bulldogs", etc. etc. However if you check the genes, there is no diferences between all of them and they are the same animal in the DNA, even including the Dingo and the New Guinea singing dog the variation is minimum. There is still a debate about the clasification of the domestic dogs, those that clasifed them as Canis familiaris based in the morphology and those that clasified them Canis lupus familiaris based in mDNA. At the moment there is still no consensus. However, the DNA of domestic dogs is somewhat different for wolves (suggesting the "subspescies" or maybe "species" status), and it seems that the "wolf" that gived origin to the modern dog is extinct as the modern wolf have no direct relation with the dog. The case of the modern lion and the cave "lion" is somewhat diferent. The morphological studies shows a cacophony of events for Panthera fossilis/spelaea, the first studies showed that were simple "lions", next ones showed they were "tigers", latter we return to lions but like a "subspecies" and latter, they had enough diferent characteristics that they are a completely diferent species and this is the way that modern studies are following, specially the Russian scientists. For Panthera atrox, the first study or Merriam and Stock (1932) showed lion and jaguar characteristics, latter it was ignored and it was clasify as "lion" by Harrington (1996), latter Christiansen & Harris (2009) made a study showed that had jaguar characteristics and was clasify as giant "jaguars", however the last morphological study of Knight & Wallace (2013), which is the most complete at date, showed that Panthera atrox had lion and tiger characteristics, which suggest a a diferent species. Interesting the Wikipedia "fans" ignored all the studies and got stuck with Harrington (1996) and its derived studies and popular books. On the genetic side, the first study of Burget et al. (2005) showed that they were genetically different from the lions but did not clarified if they were just a clade, subspecies or diferent species. Latter Barnett et al. (2009) specify that these "lions" were part of the lion "group" (so they are "lions" in lato sensu) but a diferent "clade" (now there are not lions in stricto sensu), which means that they could be clasify as subspecies at the bring of been species for they own, specially by the fact that "lions" from Beringia did not intermixed with the "lions" from USA for thousands of years, despite the fact that there were several events were the bison and horses from USA did intermix with the Eurasian/Alaska populations, so why these "lions" did not do the same? Finally Barnett et al. (2016) did clarify the issue with genetic tests on tissue and the result is that the cave "lion" and the modern "lion" are diferent species, they followed completelly diferent evolutionary ways and separte each other about 1.89 million years ago. About the pelage, the color and density is diferent from that of the modern lions, and we must not forget that some cave paintings shows cave "lions" with faint stripes in the back (Harrington, 1996), something not seen in lions at all. Also, the pelage of the cave "lion" cubs is similar to that of the adult modern lions, which is contrary to the modern lion cubs, which is similar to that of leopards. This suggests that the cave "lion" cubs were different from the modern lion cubs. This is important as the puma, the only other cat of one color coat, also have cubs with spotts. It seems that the cave "lion" cubs were striless or spotless since the begining, a characteristics of its own species. In conclution, while the morphological studies did not provide a clear view yet, the genetic studies follow a line that separate the cave "lion" from the modern lion more and more each time, which help to conclude that the Panthera fossilis/spelaea and Panthera atrox are not lions Panthera leo, but species of its own and probably new studies will show even more diferences as the DNA used will be more complete. (11-04-2018, 04:54 AM)Wolverine Wrote:Quote:Calculate... a whopping 464 kg.464 kg... P. fossilis was really a titanic predator dwarfing all felines we have on the planet now! So 140 cm shoulder height is not impossible digit. We must be carefull with the estimates based in only one bone. For example I will consider that of the skull the most reliable, but it will depends of the database used (the more specimens the better), for example there is a problem with the lion, as this species had a large head in comparison with its body and consequently with its body mass, this means that a large skull do not represent a large specimen all the time. Also, 380 mm will be "average" for lions in South Africa but is the maximum for lions in East Africa. I will recoment to use more specimens like Christiansen & Harris (2009) which use many lions, tigers and jaguars to provide a wide spectrum. The method used by Sorkin (2008) is the same formula but using only the largest specimens (commonly not related between each other): If we use the maximum figures for modern lion in scientific records, which is a skull of 401 mm and a weight of 250 kg, will produce a mass of 441.5 kg; if we use the maximum in hunting records, which is 419 mm skull and a weight of 272 kg, will produce a mass of 421.1 kg; if we use average for South Africa lions, which is 380 mm skull and weigh of 190 kg, the mass will be 394.3 kg; finally if we use the average of East African lion, which is 363 mm skull and 175 kg, will produce a mass of 416.6 kg. The average of all figures is 418.4 kg, which is a real giant amoung the great cats and probably the largest Felidae ever! Now about the limbs, some bones may be very long and other very wide, for example the longest femur from Panthera atrox is not the widest. Christiansen & Harris (2005) noted this with the Smilodon, where some bones provide lower estimations than others, even amount one single specimen, check this: Single bones produced different estimations, and this is clear when we see the result of the complete (associated bones) of Smilodon fatalis and Smilodon populator fossils used by Christiansen & Harris (2005): * Smilodon fatalis - LACM PMS1-1: Range: 195.1 - 279.0 kg, mean of 4 bones= 241 kg (weighted). * Smilodon populator - CN52 Range: 231.2 - 316.2 kg, mean of 4 bones= 258.2 kg (weighted). So the best form will be to have many bones from the same specimen in order to make an "average" of the estimations made, but as we know, this is normally not the case, as most of the specimens are fragmentary. 
 (11-04-2018, 08:08 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:I think that it may be important to mention that some of these bones mentioned in the Smilodon section could represent males and females combined. Is the gender of these cats mentioned or not? Also, what evidence is there of Smilodon sexual dimorphism?(11-04-2018, 04:54 AM)Wolverine Wrote:Quote:Calculate... a whopping 464 kg.464 kg... P. fossilis was really a titanic predator dwarfing all felines we have on the planet now! So 140 cm shoulder height is not impossible digit. (11-04-2018, 08:14 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote: I think that it may be important to mention that some of these bones mentioned in the Smilodon section could represent males and females combined. Is the gender of these cats mentioned or not? Also, what evidence is there of Smilodon sexual dimorphism? Actually the specimens that I mentioned here (Smilodon fatalis - LACM PMS1-1 and Smilodon populator - CN52) are the only bones asociated (which means that all the bones from LACM PMS1-1 belonged to the same Smilodon fatalis specimen and all the bones of CN52 belonged to the same Smilodon populator specimen), while all the other estimations were from diferent specimens. As far I remember Christiansen & Harris (2005) did not separated the specimens by sex, but in another study of Dr Christiansen (I don't remember the document name, sorry for that) shows that apparently, the sexual dimorphism in Smilodon was minimal. (11-04-2018, 08:19 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:This seems relevant...(11-04-2018, 08:14 AM)Kingtheropod Wrote: I think that it may be important to mention that some of these bones mentioned in the Smilodon section could represent males and females combined. Is the gender of these cats mentioned or not? Also, what evidence is there of Smilodon sexual dimorphism? https://today.duke.edu/2009/11/sabertooth.html
Thank you fro the information @Kingtheropod.
I know that this is not a topic of Smilodon, but just to continue in the line of the conversation, these are the two studies about the sexual domorphism in Smilodon fatalis, and the results are contradictory at some degree. 1. J. A. Meachen-Samuels and W. J. Binder: Sexual dimorphism and ontogenetic growth in the American lion and sabertoothed cat from Rancho La Brea - 2010. Abstract: Sexual dimorphism has long been purported in the American lion Panthera atrox well‐known from the asphalt deposits at Rancho La Brea. However, few studies have quantified this dimorphism. Along with the sabertoothed cat, Smilodon fatalis, we examine sexual dimorphism in dentaries from the Rancho La Brea tar pits using extant Panthera leo as a guide. Although growth rate in large carnivores declines after a certain age, it has been demonstrated to continue well beyond adulthood, therefore age must also be incorporated into a measure of sexual dimorphism in large carnivores. Prior studies demonstrated that tooth wear can be an inaccurate measure of age in Rancho La Brean carnivores, as it is affected by both diet and age. This study, instead, uses per cent pulp cavity closure of the lower canine tooth which is solely a measure of relative age, combined with linear measurements of the dentaries to separate the sexes of these two extinct cats. Results show that P. atrox has similar, or slightly greater, levels of sexual dimorphism than P. leo, whereas S. fatalis shows little to no sexual dimorphism. Our results also demonstrate that both Panthera species continue to grow into adulthood, strengthening the case that it is necessary to incorporate a measure of age into studies of sexual dimorphism in large carnivores, living or extinct. Link: https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wi...09.00659.x 2. Per Christianse and John M. Harris: Variation in Craniomandibular Morphology and Sexual Dimorphism in Pantherines and the Sabercat Smilodon fatalis - 2012. Abstract: Sexual dimorphism is widespread among carnivorans, and has been an important evolutionary factor in social ecology. However, its presence in sabertoothed felids remains contentious. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of extant Panthera and the sabertoothed felid Smilodon fatalis. S. fatalis has been reported to show little or no sexual dimorphism but to have been intraspecifically variable in skull morphology. We found that large and small specimens of S. fatalis could be assigned to male and female sexes with similar degrees of confidence as Panthera based on craniomandibular shape. P. uncia is much less craniomandibularly variable and has low levels of sexual size-dimorphism. Shape variation in S. fatalis probably reflects sexual differences. Craniomandibular size-dimorphism is lower in S. fatalis than in Panthera except P. uncia. Sexual dimorphism in felids is related to more than overall size, and S. fatalis and the four large Panthera species show marked and similar craniomandibular and dental morphometric sexual dimorphism, whereas morphometric dimorphism in P. uncia is less. Many morphometric-sexually dimorphic characters in Panthera and Smilodon are related to bite strength and presumably to killing ecology. This suggests that morphometric sexual dimorphism is an evolutionary adaptation to intraspecific resource partitioning, since large males with thicker upper canines and stronger bite forces would be able to hunt larger prey than females, which is corroborated by feeding ecology in P. leo. Sexual dimorphism indicates that S. fatalis could have been social, but it is unlikely that it lived in fusion-fission units dominated by one or a few males, as in sub-Saharan populations of P. leo. Instead, S. fatalis could have been solitary and polygynous, as most extant felids, or it may have lived in unisexual groups, as is common in P. leo persica. Link: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0048352 The study of Christiansen & Harris (2012) seems to be more olistic, more complete, so I am with them in this case, which means that there was sexual dimorphism in the Smilodon fatalis population, although it was not as large as other Panthera members. Is interesting to see that there is practically no sexual dimorphism in the snow leopards based in skulls, and although the males do weight more, in body dimentions there is practically no diference (these last two things from my own unpublished investigation). (11-04-2018, 08:08 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: The method used by Sorkin (2008) is the same formula but using only the largest specimens (commonly not related between each other): If we use the maximum figures for modern lion in scientific records, which is a skull of 401 mm and a weight of 250 kg, will produce a mass of 441.5 kg; if we use the maximum in hunting records, which is 419 mm skull and a weight of 272 kg, will produce a mass of 421.1 kg; if we use average for South Africa lions, which is 380 mm skull and weigh of 190 kg, the mass will be 394.3 kg; finally if we use the average of East African lion, which is 363 mm skull and 175 kg, will produce a mass of 416.6 kg. The average of all figures is 418.4 kg, which is a real giant amoung the great cats and probably the largest Felidae ever! Just for fun, I calculated the weight of the Panthera spelaea specimen Coll. Nr NKM-00664 which is a skull of 451 mm from the San River, and that according with Marciszak et al. (2014) it is the largest Panthera spelaea specimen found at the moment, and the forth largest skull of the Eurasian great cats. Using the the maximum figures for modern lion in scientific records, which is a skull of 401 mm and a weight of 250 kg, will produce a mass of 355.7 kg; if we use the maximum in hunting records, which is 419 mm skull and a weight of 272 kg, will produce a mass of 339.2 kg; if we use average for South Africa lions, which is 380 mm skull and weigh of 190 kg, the mass will be 317.6 kg; finally if we use the average of East African lion, which is 363 mm skull and 175 kg, will produce a mass of 335.6 kg. The average of all figures is 337.0 kg. Now let's calculate the weight for the largest Panthera atrox skull Univ. Calif 14001 with a greatest length of 467.5 mm. Using the the maximum figures for modern lion in scientific records, which is a skull of 401 mm and a weight of 250 kg, will produce a mass of 396.1 kg; if we use the maximum in hunting records, which is 419 mm skull and a weight of 272 kg, will produce a mass of 377.8 kg; if we use average for South Africa lions, which is 380 mm skull and weigh of 190 kg, the mass will be 353.8 kg; finally if we use the average of East African lion, which is 363 mm skull and 175 kg, will produce a mass of 373.8 kg. The average of all figures is 375.4 kg. Now, how reliable are these averages that I propouse? Well, when I do it to the Panthera atrox skull 2900-3 from Rancho La Brea with a greatest skull length of 458 mm, I obteined a weight of 353 kg (range from 332.7 - 372.5). The figure obteined by Christiansen & Harris (2009) for this particular large specimen was of 351 kg, so I almost hit the nail!  So I think that even with this raw and maybe "imperfect" method, the results seems reliable and suggest that, based in the largest skulls available from large samples, the heaviest weights for the cave "lions" specimens are 337 kg for Panthera spelaea, 375.4 kg for Panthera atrox and 418.4 kg for Panthera fossilis. Using the same equation, but with femurs and weights of tigers -specimens and weights related, I got a weight of 368 kg for the large femur of 480 mm of Panthera tigris soloensis, however take in count that femur length "only" is not a very good predictor of weight, based in the Smilodons from Christiansen & Harris (2005), but is the best that I can do for the moment.  (11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Wolverine , I have not read of the released measurements for those fossils since their photos showed up years ago. However, I am certain larger P. fossilis are already on record. Let's use an ideal 200 kg lion as the isometric comparison. Was the 192 mm MTIII specimen larger than the Chateau skull? If we use the respective body parts of a 200 kg lion as the samples, it does appear so. Maybe the 192 mm MTIII specimen could acquire a skull close to 500 mm which is the absolute maximum for any Panthera specimen? (11-04-2018, 04:54 AM)Wolverine Wrote:(11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. If Panthera fossilis is the only feline with a max out 500 mm skull, then it is indeed the undisputed champion. Then probably followed by Panthera spelaea intermedia, Pleistocene tiger, Smilodon populator as the tied runner-up.  (11-04-2018, 08:08 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(11-04-2018, 04:54 AM)Wolverine Wrote:Quote:Calculate... a whopping 464 kg.464 kg... P. fossilis was really a titanic predator dwarfing all felines we have on the planet now! So 140 cm shoulder height is not impossible digit. The skull is likely the least reliable, maybe in competition with the MTIII. In proportion, P. spelaea had a long skull for its long bones (Sabol 2018). The ulna is weight bearing and the variation in mass to bone length proportions is much less in such bones (Christiansen and Harris 2005). Moreover, this is a good opportunity to explain the flaws of regression and ideas behind estimation a. The Christiansen and Harris (2005), or any interspecific regression for that matter, should be taken with a grain of salt. By grouping together a plethora of species to produce the regression, the scaling terms are confounded by the fact that the equations essentially assume that all cat species are proportioned the same. Think of it this way: a jaguar is bulkier than a lion for its bones. When you plot these two species together, there becomes the illusion that as body frame increases, mass does not increase at the same rate (negative allometry, scale factor <3). In reality, this happens because the lion is naturally leaner for its frame, not because there is an actual negative allometry. Conversely, put together the leopard and the tiger in the way Christiansen and Harris (2005) did for regression. Suddenly, mass is growing much faster than the bone frame. This is because the tiger is bulkier, not because bigger framed cats are by some law heavier for their bones. When one uses regression and scale factor comparisons within the species, isometry rather than negative or positive allometry becomes the trend with a large enough sample size. That's why in my opinion, if an extant analog to an extinct species is available, using isometry for mass prediction is likely best, as Christiansen and Harris (2009) did. Also please note that the Sorkin method is just the conventional isometric comparison method, nothing more and nothing unique. The author just uses the largest extant specimen for isometric comparison, but that is an arbitrary measure. These giants are so far out of the extant range that the negative allometry in the Christiansen and Harris (2005) predisposes to inaccuracies not represented by the percent errors provided. The weighted method is not much of an actual correction either and has not been used since. Weighting percent errors is akin to an organization investigating itself, the results don't mean enough. (11-04-2018, 10:44 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Wolverine , I have not read of the released measurements for those fossils since their photos showed up years ago. However, I am certain larger P. fossilis are already on record. Let's use an ideal 200 kg lion as the isometric comparison. The MTIII is a difficult one. One issue is that when calculating the range of weights produced by isometry, the range I found was as low as 400 kg to as high a over 500 kg. In other words, the bone is not that well correlated to body size, but is nonetheless from a top 10 Panthera specimen. The second issue is that if P. fossilis is more cursorial, the MTIII would be proportionately elongated and isometrically comparing the bone to that of an extant lion will heavily overestimate the weight. Thus extrapolating other body parts is filled with uncertainty. A skull length range of 450-500 mm would not be illogical in my opinion. The issue can be applied to the skull. P. spelaea had a big skull for its bones, bigger than the extant lion. For instance, the specimen is Sabol (2018) has a femur to skull ratio of 0.99, which is distinctly less than extant lion generally as the number in P. leo is over 1.00. That means while applying the 484.7 mm skull to P. leo ratios, we'd think the femur would be 500 mm. Likely in reality the femur of the specimen was 470-480 mm, which is not that much bigger than the largest P. spelaea (470 mm femur from Germany mentioned by Deidrich). Of course still absurdly gigantic, but not what P. leo comparisons would lead one to believe. Another confounding issue is that long snouts usually means proportionately longer skulls for a body mass/size. We know that P. fossilis did have a longer snout that P. spelaea, likely making the long bone to skull ratio somewhat lesser in P. fossilis as compared to P. spelaea, further decreasing long bone length extrapolations by a bit. It is for this reason I feel the 465 mm has been underestimated via isometry or the 484.7 mm skull at least overestimated. Unless P. fossilis is exceptionally cursorial, a 465 mm ulna should give a femur of around 480 mm, matching the 484.7 mm skull. Now one can see why mass estimations vary so much, there are too many confounding variables. These two specimens were likely body size-wise just about the same as the 480 mm Ngandong femur for these reasons. Mass is a whole different rabbit hole in its own as the tiger and lion lineages hold mass differently. I have lately avoided addressing the complex topic and just give pure isometry estimates but hopefully this makes sense. As a whole, the closer the species temporally to an extant species, the more accurate the single bone estimates and vice versa.
Wow, great analysis @tigerluver, you are the expert on weight issues!
That is why I said that my results were just raw and imperfect, because I am aware that the formula of Sorkin and Christiansen & Harris is just the common isometric method, but still I think that is more reliable that the formulas of Anyonge (1993) and its gross exagerations, and even better than the formulas of Van Valkenburg (1990) that use m1 length (which produce underestimations) and the condylobasal length (wich, again, produce overestimations). I think that is very important, like you said, to take in count the "species" that we are studiyng. Modern lions and cave "lions" do not have the same morphology nor the same proportions, just like tigers and lions are also very different. (11-04-2018, 11:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote:(11-04-2018, 10:44 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Wolverine , I have not read of the released measurements for those fossils since their photos showed up years ago. However, I am certain larger P. fossilis are already on record. Let's use an ideal 200 kg lion as the isometric comparison. As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that? Panthera fossilis > Panthera atrox > Panthera spelaea intermedia > Panthera spelaea spelaea > Panthera tigris (Pleistocene)  (11-04-2018, 06:23 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(11-02-2018, 12:13 PM)Spalea Wrote: We know that African lions and Asiatic Lions cannot reproduce together. Some Indian zoos director tried to do that, total failure, the engendered individuals were defect, flaw... Thus we can almost already say that African and Asiatic lions are two dictint species. Because that is that, the specy definition isn' t ? The reproduction ability between males and females within this same specy... OK, really ? I didn't know that... I had in mind an account like this one, demonstrating it was a total failure: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne...aster.html |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |