|
Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws
|
 (10-01-2017, 11:00 AM)johnny rex Wrote: I'm sorry @GrizzlyClaws I mean the tiger skull in my previous post. I think the owner of the tiger skull is a Bengal tiger judging by the appearance of its skull. Lol i saw your post on carnivora forum for cs Can you ask the guy where he got the tiger from (What zoo)? 
Lol. I will ask him about the name of the zoo on his Instagram account later @paul cooper. He said it was a small zoo.
 (10-01-2017, 11:02 AM)johnny rex Wrote: Anyway, can anyone guess the measurements of the skull of Panthera t. acutidens that was posted by @GrizzlyClaws previously? @peter, any thoughts? Not necessarily the old school Wanhsien tiger, it could belong to an Amur tiger who lived in the beginning era of the Holocene period. I have the feeling that the modern Amur tigers have suffered the radical gracilization due the lack of large preys and human pressure. The robust features of the old school Amur tiger now appear to be almost absent among the modern Amur tigers; totally extinct in the wild, while with only few survivors who carry these robust features in the captivity. If the 2 inches thick Amur canine tooth is a captive specimen, then it could be pretty much a specimen that still carries the recessive gene of the old school Amur tigers.
What are your guesses regarding the measurements of the particular prehistoric Amur tiger skull, @GrizzlyClaws?
(10-01-2017, 11:13 AM)johnny rex Wrote: What are your guesses regarding the measurements of the particular prehistoric Amur tiger skull, @GrizzlyClaws? The robusticity is the remarkable feature that shares by both prehistoric skull and 2 inches wide canine tooth. For that prehistoric skull, Guate previously made an estimation of 17.5 inches long and 11.5 inches wide, but it turns out that his estimation may still be too conservative and too low for the actual skull. Since the prehistoric skull made the 11.5 inches wide captive Bengal skull looks gracile in comparison, if you agree with my assertion. The robust features of the prehistoric skull looks unmatched in any comparison with other prehistoric felines, even @peter has been expressed his impression many times about the remarkable robusticity of that particular prehistoric skull. The 2 inches wide canine tooth is without a doubt another mind-boggling piece of evidence. The magnitude of the canine width exceeds that of the Smilodon populator's upper canine teeth, and the canine thickness of the conical-toothed pantherine cats absolutely prevail over the thin/blade shaped sabertooth fangs. Only a super robust big cat can possess this kind of monstrous canine teeth. I always got the impression that the old school Amur tigers perhaps possessed the unmatched robusticity that has become gradually lost among the modern Amur tigers.  (10-01-2017, 11:10 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(10-01-2017, 11:02 AM)johnny rex Wrote: Anyway, can anyone guess the measurements of the skull of Panthera t. acutidens that was posted by @GrizzlyClaws previously? @peter, any thoughts? Holy Cow, first time Im hearing this from you Grizz. So that means possibly the Siberian/Amur Tiger is possibly now a contender for the largest cat that ever existed? ....we have to exclude the Liger ofcourse since they were man made and not done by Mother Nature. (10-02-2017, 09:01 AM)genao87 Wrote:(10-01-2017, 11:10 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(10-01-2017, 11:02 AM)johnny rex Wrote: Anyway, can anyone guess the measurements of the skull of Panthera t. acutidens that was posted by @GrizzlyClaws previously? @peter, any thoughts? Definitely possible that the Amur tiger in its supersizing era was also one of the contenders for the largest feline. However, very few people have interested on it. Recently, there is a team who studied the history of the African lions, and they just discovered that the African lions in its supersizing era were also colossal.
African lions, especially the southern specimens, during the prehistoric era in its prime could be as large as the prehistoric tigers.
(10-01-2017, 10:52 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(10-01-2017, 10:47 AM)johnny rex Wrote: If this particular male tiger is an Indian specimen, there is no doubt that a large male Siberian tiger will attained a much larger skull. (10-01-2017, 11:29 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(10-01-2017, 11:13 AM)johnny rex Wrote: What are your guesses regarding the measurements of the particular prehistoric Amur tiger skull, @GrizzlyClaws? If the largest skulls of Panthera atrox or Panthera fossilis could reach 12 inches in zygomatic width and possibly 19 inches in length then, I think, the largest skulls of prehistoric Panthera t. altaica could reach those sizes.
@johnny rex
The giant African lion fossils were found in East Africa, more specifically in the north-werstern part of Kenya. According to the brief description from the abstract, I speculate their skull is also at least 19 inches long. BTW, the prehistoric Amur tiger possibly got the most robust skull overall, also with roundest features such as the greatest ratio of width/length and the shortest/broadest snout/muzzle.
this is mind boggling now that the regular African Lion went to huge sizes.....and not the Cave Lion and American Lion (who are no longer lions) do not have that much of size advantage on them. Speaking with Tigerluver, He mentioned that for now Ngangdong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) is still the champ.
(10-02-2017, 10:08 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @johnny rex I see. Can you share the link about the prehistoric African lion? (10-02-2017, 10:15 AM)genao87 Wrote: this is mind boggling now that the regular African Lion went to huge sizes.....and not the Cave Lion and American Lion (who are no longer lions) do not have that much of size advantage on them. Speaking with Tigerluver, He mentioned that for now Ngangdong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) is still the champ. The Cave lion and American lion possibly did not have any size advantage over the Amur tiger and African lion in their prime since everyone in the past got supersized thanked to the much healthier ecosystems and much more abundant prey base. The modern tigers and lions are simply more versatile in the adaption, hence they managed to successfully shrink their size accordingly to the new environment, and those with less adaption capability like the Cave lion lineage simply got forsaken by the Mother Nature. The Ngandong tiger was also the undisputed champion of the flexibility, since they had magically shrunken themselves from 1000 pounds into a puny 200 pounds Bali tiger.
@johnny rex
Unfortunately, the document is still not available yet. http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.279n4 (10-02-2017, 10:28 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(10-02-2017, 10:15 AM)genao87 Wrote: this is mind boggling now that the regular African Lion went to huge sizes.....and not the Cave Lion and American Lion (who are no longer lions) do not have that much of size advantage on them. Speaking with Tigerluver, He mentioned that for now Ngangdong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) is still the champ. So Grizz, I expect the same size difference between the Prehistoric African Lion and Amur Tiger...possibly the same goes for the Bengal but I didnt hear anything from you yet on the matter. But I guess the Tigers even back then when they were both huge, the Tiger just had the same size advantage over the Lion as they do today? I am assuming the same the 8-10% that Tigers have over Lions today. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 32 Guest(s) |