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.
11-04-2018, 12:47 PM( This post was last modified: 11-04-2018, 12:48 PM by Wolverine )
(11-04-2018, 11:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote: 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.
I calculated also very high body weight but using "house-made" methods... Let's assume that the radial bone on the photo below belongs to the average African lion with shoulder height of 102 cm and weight 190 kg.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The radial bone of this lion is 150 mm on the my monitor while the radial bone of the P. fossilis below is 203 mm long. In order to calculate what is the shoulder height of that gigantic cave "lion" on the photo we have make a simple mathematical quiz:
150 mm - 102 cm
203 mm - X
150.X=102.203
X = 102.203/150 = 138,04 cm
So shoulder height of the gigantic cave "lion" on the photo is 138,04 cm!
Now we have to calculate what will be the weight of Panthera cat with shoulder height of 138-140 cm. As long as I know there are 2 formulas for calculation:
a.) if you compare 2 animals with same or similar body structure and one of them is 25% taller its 2 times more massive.
b.) if you compare 2 animals with same or similar body structure and one of them is 2 times taller its 8 times more massive.
So in order to calculate the weight of P.fossilis with 138-140 cm shoulder height we have two optioins:
1.) we have to find out what is the body mass of African lion with shoulder height 111 cm and multiply 2 times its weight
or
2.) we have to find out what is the weight of grown cub of African lion with shoulder height 70 cm and multiply 8 times its weight
Unfourtunately I don't have a data for 111 cm lion so would have to assess a little bit... If 102 cm lion weights 190 kg (according Guate) 111 cm lion I guess will be 60-70 kg heavier, mean around 250-260 kg.
Now we multiply 2 times and get blood-freezing weight of the 140 cm Panthera fossilis of 500-520 kg...
Maybe you don't believe guys but after the discovery in 2015 in many Russian media appear information that some of the discovered cave "lions" weighted 600 kg... yes, 600 kg. Since such a weight is obviously a bullshit I didn't make efforts to translate such a sources. https://sobesednik.ru/obshchestvo/201508...sil-600-kg
But I'll be not surprised if 140 cm Panthera fossilis weighted half ton.
(11-04-2018, 12:25 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Those artificial hybrids may have very little value for studying. However, those hybrids that occurred in the wild is just another story.
Remember, we are desperately waiting for the fossil record of the Panthera spelaea/Panthera atrox hybrid, yet everything is still no avail.
In fact, there are/were no Panthera spelaea/Panthera atrox hybrids. Check this image from the document of Dr Barnett and his team from 2009:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The specimens 1,2 and 6 are very close to those of 37 and 38, geographically speaking. If these were the same species-subspecies, it should be no problem if they intermix, but contrary to the contemporary mammals of that region in the Pleistocene, these two populations of cave "lions" did not intermix at all and this is clearly described in the document of 2009. The question is, what happened there? It seems like if the two great cats populations were so different that they avoided completelly, which suggest a deeper separation, just like brown and polar bears, and even among these last ones there is evidence of intermix!
I am tempted to retain that everything was attempted as regard to crossing between Asiatic and African lion. In the worst case some totally flawed and defected individuals, at best some no value artificials hybrids. Nevertheless in this last case, in a more general sense, we are evoking a genetic enrichment.
OK, the purety of a lineage seems very difficult to preserve once an animal was extracted from its natural environment. Very quickly the obtained results no longer mean anything (even if the crossed individuals seem to be in good health).
But I'm talking as an absolute no erudit person.
About #227: Let us dream about the fossils' genome !
(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...
That's logic !
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.
Yes I know, that many things aren´t simple at all. Still we have these classifications and scientists change things time to time when they see it fit and there is large consensus. I of course understand how you approach this matter, but my point of view is somewhat different and I don´t see yet any reason to think otherwise. I am waiting with interest how things develop in future. I told how I see situation overall. I find it interesting to see what new information brings on the table in future and do we have still these species considered as lions or not. If in future we have information confirming some species from same progenitor looking and behaving same way, then I have no problem if they also in future are called lions.
I can see your point, but your information is same as can be found from research reports naturally. I can respect your conclusion even though I have my own conclusion. It happens when people look at something from different perspective. But as said, I told how I see situation and am waiting at least a few years if there is then more information than there is today. With interest :)
If the Asiatic lion is in danger of extinction, and it is possible to preserve it at the cost of the subspecies being impure, isn't the cost worth it to save this lion? If the lineage were traced back, I'm sure that in some point in time, the Asiatic lion and the African lion were once one-and-the-same big cat.
(11-04-2018, 01:16 PM)brotherbear Wrote: If the Asiatic lion is in danger of extinction, and it is possible to preserve it at the cost of the subspecies being impure, isn't the cost worth it to save this lion? If the lineage were traced back, I'm sure that in some point in time, the Asiatic lion and the African lion were once one-and-the-same big cat.
At a first step I have simply believed that all the crossing between Asiatic and African lions were doomed to failure. As @GuateGojira showed me they were currently happened, of course to preserve the Asiatic lion it worths breeding it with other lions, yes if the decendants are in good health...
(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 formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
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?
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.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
On this issue, I have my own questions regarding Panthera spelaea.
Diedrich & Rothschild (2012) concluded that the cave lion was most likely a pursuit hunter based on bone exostoses on the brachialis muscle attachment point on two individuals, one from the Eemian and the other Weichselian, out of a considerable sample of bones (NISP=1208, MNI Unknown) indicating the use of the paw-sweep used in running, which apparently supports pursuit hunting, as opposed to extant lions which are ambush hunters:
Quote:Exostoses in Smilodon, H. crenatidens and H. latidens are found in the flexor tendons of the upper limb (Heald, 1989; McCall et al., 2003; Moodie, 1923; Shermis, 1983; Turner, 1997) and have been used as evidence for grappling behavior (Rothschild, 2011). The patterns of exostoses in P. l. spelaea have a different distribution (brachialis muscle, reflecting flexion activities), instead supporting the hypothesis of pursuit behavior. The distribution of exostoses (Fig. 7) and enthesial reaction otherwise identifies P. l. spelaea as a pursuit, rather than ambush predator.
However, Schellhorn (2014) concluded based on ulna dimensions that the cave lion bore adaptations closer to forest cats compared to the extant lion, i.e. seemed to be less cursorial, among other things.
Quote:The included fossil cats Dinofelis piveteaui, P. spelaea, and S. fatalis all distinctly plot within the closed or forest habitat in the scatter plots (Figs. 1b, 2e, f).
In this case the sample size was not impressive, only a single ulna was used in this analysis.
And as has been discussed in the literature before, e.g. Sabol (2018), the cave lion was more robustly built than the African lion, and does indeed share similarities to the tiger in some of its features, including in the limb bones.
By scaling the cats down to the same shoulder height, I compared P. atrox, P. leo, and P. spelaea skeletons to each other (left-right, the cave lion skeleton was digitally modified by a friend from an image from this article https://3dprint.com/216653/reconstructing-cave-lion/)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Looking side-by-side, P. spelaea looks somewhat similar proportionally to P. leo, but it is overall noticeably more robust. I don't know exactly what implications this would have for cursoriality, but intuitively one would think it to be a less cursorial, more ambush-oriented predator.
Indeed, assuming the hypothesis of a derivation from P. fossilis, a shortening of the cave lion's distal limbs can be inferred from @tigerluver's calculations on post #52, as we enter the late Pleistocene, which would suggest a reduction in cursoriality.
A similar situation is seen in the cave lion's main competitor, cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) which also have shortened distal limb elements, relative this time to their extant counterpart, which has also been suggested to indicate a less cursorial mode of hunting, among other things:
Quote:The crural index (tibia length/femur length) in the skeleton of Los Aprendices is 0.74, which is similar to the values of Crocuta spelaea (0.75) and Pachycrocuta brevirostris (0.74) and clearly lower than in extant C. crocuta (0.82) (Palmqvist et al., 2011). The shortening of the tibia of C. spelaea suggests a less cursorial lifestyle. Also, such shortening could provide great power and more stability to dismember and carry large parts of carcasses without dragging (Spoor, 1985; Turner and Antón, 1996; Palmqvist et al., 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...o_Zaragoza
Of course this could also be an adaptation towards the colder climate, not just in the cave hyena but the coeval cave lion as well, to reduce the size of extremities. Cave paintings have suggested that the cat had smaller ears, an inference supported by the small ears of the cub remains, as well as the shortened tail found at least in infancy, so the scenario where limbs are also shortened does not seem implausible, but apparently this would happen alongside the retention of a cursorial mode of hunting - assuming the hypotheses of a derivation from fossilis AND the inferences of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) are correct.
Some frozen finds, such as the steppe bison blue babe, suggest a similar hunting behaviour to the extant lion, though of course the duration of the chase is hard to infer in such cases:
*This image is copyright of its original author
(Multiple lions hunting Blue Babe is a bit speculative, but that's besides the point here. A great illustration by Anton, regardless).
Unfortunately I can only attach Schellhorn (2014)'s paper because WildFact won't let me attach the Diedrich paper, but I'll make a new post and attach it there.
Any thoughts on the level of cursoriality possessed by the Late Pleistocene cave lion? Particularly in regards to the hypothesis that they were pursuit hunters? The exact answer isn't clear to me, and this is the data that I can find.
(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 formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
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?
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.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
On this issue, I have my own questions regarding Panthera spelaea.
Diedrich & Rothschild (2012) concluded that the cave lion was most likely a pursuit hunter based on bone exostoses on the brachialis muscle attachment point on two individuals, one from the Eemian and the other Weichselian, out of a considerable sample of bones (NISP=1208, MNI Unknown) indicating the use of the paw-sweep used in running, which apparently supports pursuit hunting, as opposed to extant lions which are ambush hunters:
Quote:Exostoses in Smilodon, H. crenatidens and H. latidens are found in the flexor tendons of the upper limb (Heald, 1989; McCall et al., 2003; Moodie, 1923; Shermis, 1983; Turner, 1997) and have been used as evidence for grappling behavior (Rothschild, 2011). The patterns of exostoses in P. l. spelaea have a different distribution (brachialis muscle, reflecting flexion activities), instead supporting the hypothesis of pursuit behavior. The distribution of exostoses (Fig. 7) and enthesial reaction otherwise identifies P. l. spelaea as a pursuit, rather than ambush predator.
However, Schellhorn (2014) concluded based on ulna dimensions that the cave lion bore adaptations closer to forest cats compared to the extant lion, i.e. seemed to be less cursorial, among other things.
Quote:The included fossil cats Dinofelis piveteaui, P. spelaea, and S. fatalis all distinctly plot within the closed or forest habitat in the scatter plots (Figs. 1b, 2e, f).
In this case the sample size was not impressive, only a single ulna was used in this analysis.
And as has been discussed in the literature before, e.g. Sabol (2018), the cave lion was more robustly built than the African lion, and does indeed share similarities to the tiger in some of its features, including in the limb bones.
By scaling the cats down to the same shoulder height, I compared P. atrox, P. leo, and P. spelaea skeletons to each other (left-right, the cave lion skeleton was digitally modified by a friend from an image from this article https://3dprint.com/216653/reconstructing-cave-lion/)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Looking side-by-side, P. spelaea looks somewhat similar proportionally to P. leo, but it is overall noticeably more robust. I don't know exactly what implications this would have for cursoriality, but intuitively one would think it to be a less cursorial, more ambush-oriented predator.
Indeed, assuming the hypothesis of a derivation from P. fossilis, a shortening of the cave lion's distal limbs can be inferred from @tigerluver's calculations on post #52, as we enter the late Pleistocene, which would suggest a reduction in cursoriality.
A similar situation is seen in the cave lion's main competitor, cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) which also have shortened distal limb elements, relative this time to their extant counterpart, which has also been suggested to indicate a less cursorial mode of hunting, among other things:
Quote:The crural index (tibia length/femur length) in the skeleton of Los Aprendices is 0.74, which is similar to the values of Crocuta spelaea (0.75) and Pachycrocuta brevirostris (0.74) and clearly lower than in extant C. crocuta (0.82) (Palmqvist et al., 2011). The shortening of the tibia of C. spelaea suggests a less cursorial lifestyle. Also, such shortening could provide great power and more stability to dismember and carry large parts of carcasses without dragging (Spoor, 1985; Turner and Antón, 1996; Palmqvist et al., 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...o_Zaragoza
Of course this could also be an adaptation towards the colder climate, not just in the cave hyena but the coeval cave lion as well, to reduce the size of extremities. Cave paintings have suggested that the cat had smaller ears, an inference supported by the small ears of the cub remains, as well as the shortened tail found at least in infancy, so the scenario where limbs are also shortened does not seem implausible, but apparently this would happen alongside the retention of a cursorial mode of hunting - assuming the hypotheses of a derivation from fossilis AND the inferences of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) are correct.
Some frozen finds, such as the steppe bison blue babe, suggest a similar hunting behaviour to the extant lion, though of course the duration of the chase is hard to infer in such cases:
*This image is copyright of its original author
(Multiple lions hunting Blue Babe is a bit speculative, but that's besides the point here. A great illustration by Anton, regardless).
Unfortunately I can only attach Schellhorn (2014)'s paper because WildFact won't let me attach the Diedrich paper, but I'll make a new post and attach it there.
Any thoughts on the level of cursoriality possessed by the Late Pleistocene cave lion? Particularly in regards to the hypothesis that they were pursuit hunters? The exact answer isn't clear to me, and this is the data that I can find.
11-05-2018, 12:29 AM( This post was last modified: 11-05-2018, 12:35 AM by Shadow )
(11-04-2018, 11:40 PM)Ghari Sher Wrote:
(11-04-2018, 12:00 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(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.
The formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
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?
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.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
On this issue, I have my own questions regarding Panthera spelaea.
Diedrich & Rothschild (2012) concluded that the cave lion was most likely a pursuit hunter based on bone exostoses on the brachialis muscle attachment point on two individuals, one from the Eemian and the other Weichselian, out of a considerable sample of bones (NISP=1208, MNI Unknown) indicating the use of the paw-sweep used in running, which apparently supports pursuit hunting, as opposed to extant lions which are ambush hunters:
Quote:Exostoses in Smilodon, H. crenatidens and H. latidens are found in the flexor tendons of the upper limb (Heald, 1989; McCall et al., 2003; Moodie, 1923; Shermis, 1983; Turner, 1997) and have been used as evidence for grappling behavior (Rothschild, 2011). The patterns of exostoses in P. l. spelaea have a different distribution (brachialis muscle, reflecting flexion activities), instead supporting the hypothesis of pursuit behavior. The distribution of exostoses (Fig. 7) and enthesial reaction otherwise identifies P. l. spelaea as a pursuit, rather than ambush predator.
However, Schellhorn (2014) concluded based on ulna dimensions that the cave lion bore adaptations closer to forest cats compared to the extant lion, i.e. seemed to be less cursorial, among other things.
Quote:The included fossil cats Dinofelis piveteaui, P. spelaea, and S. fatalis all distinctly plot within the closed or forest habitat in the scatter plots (Figs. 1b, 2e, f).
In this case the sample size was not impressive, only a single ulna was used in this analysis.
And as has been discussed in the literature before, e.g. Sabol (2018), the cave lion was more robustly built than the African lion, and does indeed share similarities to the tiger in some of its features, including in the limb bones.
By scaling the cats down to the same shoulder height, I compared P. atrox, P. leo, and P. spelaea skeletons to each other (left-right, the cave lion skeleton was digitally modified by a friend from an image from this article https://3dprint.com/216653/reconstructing-cave-lion/)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Looking side-by-side, P. spelaea looks somewhat similar proportionally to P. leo, but it is overall noticeably more robust. I don't know exactly what implications this would have for cursoriality, but intuitively one would think it to be a less cursorial, more ambush-oriented predator.
Indeed, assuming the hypothesis of a derivation from P. fossilis, a shortening of the cave lion's distal limbs can be inferred from @tigerluver's calculations on post #52, as we enter the late Pleistocene, which would suggest a reduction in cursoriality.
A similar situation is seen in the cave lion's main competitor, cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) which also have shortened distal limb elements, relative this time to their extant counterpart, which has also been suggested to indicate a less cursorial mode of hunting, among other things:
Quote:The crural index (tibia length/femur length) in the skeleton of Los Aprendices is 0.74, which is similar to the values of Crocuta spelaea (0.75) and Pachycrocuta brevirostris (0.74) and clearly lower than in extant C. crocuta (0.82) (Palmqvist et al., 2011). The shortening of the tibia of C. spelaea suggests a less cursorial lifestyle. Also, such shortening could provide great power and more stability to dismember and carry large parts of carcasses without dragging (Spoor, 1985; Turner and Antón, 1996; Palmqvist et al., 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...o_Zaragoza
Of course this could also be an adaptation towards the colder climate, not just in the cave hyena but the coeval cave lion as well, to reduce the size of extremities. Cave paintings have suggested that the cat had smaller ears, an inference supported by the small ears of the cub remains, as well as the shortened tail found at least in infancy, so the scenario where limbs are also shortened does not seem implausible, but apparently this would happen alongside the retention of a cursorial mode of hunting - assuming the hypotheses of a derivation from fossilis AND the inferences of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) are correct.
Some frozen finds, such as the steppe bison blue babe, suggest a similar hunting behaviour to the extant lion, though of course the duration of the chase is hard to infer in such cases:
*This image is copyright of its original author
(Multiple lions hunting Blue Babe is a bit speculative, but that's besides the point here. A great illustration by Anton, regardless).
Unfortunately I can only attach Schellhorn (2014)'s paper because WildFact won't let me attach the Diedrich paper, but I'll make a new post and attach it there.
Any thoughts on the level of cursoriality possessed by the Late Pleistocene cave lion? Particularly in regards to the hypothesis that they were pursuit hunters? The exact answer isn't clear to me, and this is the data that I can find.
I have to say, that sometimes I find these hypotheses in a way amusing. I mean from one bone or from some bones are made quite big hypotheses. Here we have also a question, that what is a pursue hunter... Cheetah, which can run about 400 meters and then have to give up unless able to get prey. So it also have to try to have some surprise advantage if possible. Or African wild dog, which can run long distances up to several kilometers to make prey exhausted... Then again here is now hypothesis about pursue hunter same time as talking about a bigger animal, than modern lion. A lot of muscle there, so it feels logical to think, that if pursue hunter, then distance has to be quite short tough. So if no ambush advantege, prey should be quite slow. Which then again mean usually a big animal. African lion has no trouble to pursue a hippo, which is for some reason far from a river...
I would say, that only logical conclusion is, that overall it has hunted like a lion what comes to ambush and distance how long it can pursue prey. If there is difference, most probably we are talking about quite marginal issue. I mean can some animal pursue prey for 20-30 meters or up to 100 meters, that isn´t really too big difference, both animals get fatigued fast if not able to catch the prey. So first question would be, that what is meant by pursue hunter in real world, distances? I think, that it is quite safe to assume, that cave lion or american lion weren´t long distance runners.
Sometimes when looking too long times millimeters and centimeters it can be easy to forget common sense perspective. People can argue about irrelevant trivia instead looking what is overall picture. There are details which are relevant naturally, but sometimes details, which actually are much less than that :) Then again some details, which are impossible to be sure when too long time has passed and not so much what to examine.
Can anyone give you a certain answer? I think, that not. Only best estimation.
11-05-2018, 10:50 AM( This post was last modified: 11-05-2018, 10:54 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(11-04-2018, 11:40 PM)Ghari Sher Wrote:
(11-04-2018, 12:00 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(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.
The formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
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?
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.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
On this issue, I have my own questions regarding Panthera spelaea.
Diedrich & Rothschild (2012) concluded that the cave lion was most likely a pursuit hunter based on bone exostoses on the brachialis muscle attachment point on two individuals, one from the Eemian and the other Weichselian, out of a considerable sample of bones (NISP=1208, MNI Unknown) indicating the use of the paw-sweep used in running, which apparently supports pursuit hunting, as opposed to extant lions which are ambush hunters:
Quote:Exostoses in Smilodon, H. crenatidens and H. latidens are found in the flexor tendons of the upper limb (Heald, 1989; McCall et al., 2003; Moodie, 1923; Shermis, 1983; Turner, 1997) and have been used as evidence for grappling behavior (Rothschild, 2011). The patterns of exostoses in P. l. spelaea have a different distribution (brachialis muscle, reflecting flexion activities), instead supporting the hypothesis of pursuit behavior. The distribution of exostoses (Fig. 7) and enthesial reaction otherwise identifies P. l. spelaea as a pursuit, rather than ambush predator.
However, Schellhorn (2014) concluded based on ulna dimensions that the cave lion bore adaptations closer to forest cats compared to the extant lion, i.e. seemed to be less cursorial, among other things.
Quote:The included fossil cats Dinofelis piveteaui, P. spelaea, and S. fatalis all distinctly plot within the closed or forest habitat in the scatter plots (Figs. 1b, 2e, f).
In this case the sample size was not impressive, only a single ulna was used in this analysis.
And as has been discussed in the literature before, e.g. Sabol (2018), the cave lion was more robustly built than the African lion, and does indeed share similarities to the tiger in some of its features, including in the limb bones.
By scaling the cats down to the same shoulder height, I compared P. atrox, P. leo, and P. spelaea skeletons to each other (left-right, the cave lion skeleton was digitally modified by a friend from an image from this article https://3dprint.com/216653/reconstructing-cave-lion/)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Looking side-by-side, P. spelaea looks somewhat similar proportionally to P. leo, but it is overall noticeably more robust. I don't know exactly what implications this would have for cursoriality, but intuitively one would think it to be a less cursorial, more ambush-oriented predator.
Indeed, assuming the hypothesis of a derivation from P. fossilis, a shortening of the cave lion's distal limbs can be inferred from @tigerluver's calculations on post #52, as we enter the late Pleistocene, which would suggest a reduction in cursoriality.
A similar situation is seen in the cave lion's main competitor, cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) which also have shortened distal limb elements, relative this time to their extant counterpart, which has also been suggested to indicate a less cursorial mode of hunting, among other things:
Quote:The crural index (tibia length/femur length) in the skeleton of Los Aprendices is 0.74, which is similar to the values of Crocuta spelaea (0.75) and Pachycrocuta brevirostris (0.74) and clearly lower than in extant C. crocuta (0.82) (Palmqvist et al., 2011). The shortening of the tibia of C. spelaea suggests a less cursorial lifestyle. Also, such shortening could provide great power and more stability to dismember and carry large parts of carcasses without dragging (Spoor, 1985; Turner and Antón, 1996; Palmqvist et al., 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...o_Zaragoza
Of course this could also be an adaptation towards the colder climate, not just in the cave hyena but the coeval cave lion as well, to reduce the size of extremities. Cave paintings have suggested that the cat had smaller ears, an inference supported by the small ears of the cub remains, as well as the shortened tail found at least in infancy, so the scenario where limbs are also shortened does not seem implausible, but apparently this would happen alongside the retention of a cursorial mode of hunting - assuming the hypotheses of a derivation from fossilis AND the inferences of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) are correct.
Some frozen finds, such as the steppe bison blue babe, suggest a similar hunting behaviour to the extant lion, though of course the duration of the chase is hard to infer in such cases:
*This image is copyright of its original author
(Multiple lions hunting Blue Babe is a bit speculative, but that's besides the point here. A great illustration by Anton, regardless).
Unfortunately I can only attach Schellhorn (2014)'s paper because WildFact won't let me attach the Diedrich paper, but I'll make a new post and attach it there.
Any thoughts on the level of cursoriality possessed by the Late Pleistocene cave lion? Particularly in regards to the hypothesis that they were pursuit hunters? The exact answer isn't clear to me, and this is the data that I can find.
Oddly, Panthera leo looks like the one with biggest skull when the shoulder height being equalized.
When it comes to the cursoriality, Panthera spealea spelaea from the late Pleistocene looks like the one with the lowest level, and it also attained a maximum weight of 300-350 kg, very reminiscent to the largest Manchurian tigers in the history. These two felines were also highly convergently evolved.
Panthera spelaea intermedia from the early late Pleistocene was even larger at 400 kg, with a higher level of cursoriality which is considered a more primitive trait and transitional phase closer to Panthera fossilis.
Panthera spelaea spelaea should be considered as the final stabilized form of the Cave lion family, looks like its ultimate goal was to evolve morphologically closer to Panthera tigris.
@tigerluver , @GuateGojira probably you have heard about the famous liger Hercules, having shoulder height "only" 49 inches (125 cm) it weighted 418 kg, we could imagine what will be a weight of liger 135-140 cm tall. According other version this liger was 132 cm tall. Of course Hercules as a domestic animal was a bit overweight.
(11-05-2018, 11:07 AM)Wolverine Wrote: @tigerluver , @GuateGojira probably you have heard about the famous liger Hercules, having shoulder height "only" 49 inches (125 cm) it weighted 418 kg, we could imagine what will be a weight of liger 135-140 cm tall. According other version this liger was 132 cm tall. Of course Hercules as a domestic animal was a bit overweight.
11-05-2018, 11:25 AM( This post was last modified: 11-05-2018, 11:55 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(11-05-2018, 11:21 AM)Wolverine Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:10 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:07 AM)Wolverine Wrote: @tigerluver , @GuateGojira probably you have heard about the famous liger Hercules, having shoulder height "only" 49 inches (125 cm) it weighted 418 kg, we could imagine what will be a weight of liger 135-140 cm tall. According other version this liger was 132 cm tall. Of course Hercules as a domestic animal was a bit overweight.
The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)
Let's assume that the radial bone on the photo below belongs to the average African lion with shoulder height of 102 cm and weight 190 kg. 
