ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

Options

return 80

Member

31 Replies

0 Topics

Joined: Sep 2023

Reputation: 2

#2,817

Yesterday, 01:54 PM

(04-02-2025, 08:32 AM)peter Wrote: RETURN 80

Great info about the (skulls and bones of) Middle and Late Pleistocene lions! Much appreciated.

I saw some of the bones found in northwestern Europe and the North Sea. Although the last lions in this part of Europe were smaller than their relatives in central, southern, eastern Europe and, in particular, Russia, they were still big. Late Pleistocene lions not only were very large, but, in particular, massive.

I'm not sure, but my guess is Late Pleistocene lions and their recent relatives might have co-existed for some time. I'm not only referring to Africa. Late Pleistocene cave lions in the Russian Far East, although also smaller than their relatives in western Russia, severely outsized the local tigers. These tigers, as you said, represented the first wave and, sizewise, more or less compared to their recent relatives. Meaning they were not small by any standard.

Some years ago, in this thread, I discussed an article about skulls and bones found in a number of caves in Primorye (Russian Far East). I made a summary (9 pages) and wonder if this is the moment to repost it one more time. Barsyshnikov's findings, after all, were interesting. Let me know what you think.

The question is where to do it. We could decide for a few interesting detours, but the aim of this thread is to discuss the life and times of today's wild tigers. They really can use the attention.

Before continuing with their prehistoric relatives, however, I want to discuss (the size of) Indochinese tigers. You referred to a few large skulls in some of your last posts. I think it would be an interesting topic, because of the lack of information. V. Mazak wrote about the size of Indochinese tigers in 'Der Tiger' (1983), but he, as far as I know, was the only zoologist who did. His collegue, J.H. Mazak, also published an interesting study, but he focused on skulls. Meaning we could do with a bit more.

I found a number of interesting letters and articles published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS) and bought a few books. Not one of them was written by a zoologist, but information collected by hunters still beats assumptions only.

I'll need a few days to finish the post about Indochinese tigers, as it will be a long one.

If you find a bit more about tiger skulls that could be of interest, feel free to inform us. I'm in particular interested in the way today's zoologists and paleotologists measure skulls from photographs. As I said before, I measured most skulls in natural history museums. I had them in my hands, saw them from all angles and discussed them with biologists and curators. Not seldom, I asked them to measure some of the skulls I had measured. In the great majority of cases, the results were very similar. Differences in, for instance, the greatest total length ranged between 1-4 mm, and 4 mm was quite the exception.

Not a few of the skulls I measured were also measured by others (referring to the datasets of a number of recent publications). They used photographs to measure them and the results were different every time, especially in greatest total length, condylobasal length and the width of the rostrum. I'm not saying the differences were significant, but they were remarkable at times. Same for the skulls in the dataset of the publication mentioned before ('Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between the skulls of tigers from mainland Asia', Cooper DM et al, 2022).

I know you discussed this method before, but I wouldn't mind to read a bit more. The main question is why the length between two fixed points differs as much as it does. It is quite remarkable if we add the distance between both points is measured in a straight line with a reliable instrument.

Hi Peter,

1. The coexistence between cave lions and extant lions

Whether cave lions and extant lions coexist has always been an interesting question.From many related molecular genetics studies, there is a difference in separation time between cave lions and extant lions(Due to differences in samples and usage methods), and there is insufficient evidence to prove gene flow communication.According to fossil remains analysis from several locations in Europe, extant lions are also likely to have reoccupied their territories in Europe after the extinction of cave lions.

Although some reports claim that cave lions may become extinct later than we imagine, as well as some early reports of cave lion materials from the Holocene(Castanos 1984; Altuna 1986, etc),but I think these appraisals need further confirmation.

Therefore, the question of whether cave lions and extant lions coexist is likely to have clearer conclusions with future research. Based on the existing evidence, my opinion is that they may not coexist, or even if there is a brief coexistence, the time is very limited.

2.The encounter between lions and tigers in East Asia

As far as I know, the earliest coexistence of lions and tigers in Asia was actually much earlier, recorded at Zhoukoudian No.1 location (Middle Pleistocene, roughly corresponding to the Cromer interglacial to Mindel glacial period in Europe).They are Panthera cf. tigris and Panthera youngi, respectively.The classification and positioning of the latter is unclear, and it is currently believed to be related to Panthera spelaea/atrox.