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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 3 Vote(s) - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-04-2015, 10:10 AM by tigerluver )

General points I took from your posts worth discussing:
You have a habit of taking estimates that fit your definition for the tiger's size as reality, and ignore actual weights at those greatest lengths and you know which ones I'm referring to. The seeds were planted in other threads, and that's for a different topic. Regardless, looks like you're in the trap with me, so let's burn some time while we wait for the crew to get us out. 

All long bones mentioned are nothing but above average. Untrue, take the 465 mm ulna for example, a 203 kg lion's ulna is 79mm shorter than the P. fossilis specimen, that is a huge difference in terms of mass. The same goes for the other large long bones of Pleistocene cats. On body length, my values are close to yours. You disregard isometric and allometric relations, that probably explains why none of the long dimensions produce a very large specimen in your mind. The MT3 was addressed as a risky size estimate due to the inherent nature of bone in relation to the body. But, considering regular Panthera proportions, my estimate was 390 kg, how does that sound? Considering the increasing robusticity, I'd say another 420 kg P. fossilis specimen joins the ulna. 

Next, I've already went over the evidence for great robusticity across Pleistocene species. Their bones are significantly more robust, does that mean nothing to you? You seem to have more data than the entire professional community, please bring some numbers on your bones in that contradicts databases like that of Christiansen. For references, refer to sources such as Brongersma, Dawkins et al., Christiansen, and your local museum. The bears of the time blew the massive fellow you posted out of the water in terms of robusticity as well.

I just pulled up an old file containing a plethora of bone dimensions. Here's a 436 kg bear of FL = 445.5 mm and least circumference = 126.25 mm, an index of 0.283. Modern mainland tigers have an index of 0.24-0.25. Considering the 8% more robusticity of prehistoric cats, that would put them on the bone level of at least this modern Grizzly (in no way am I saying that cats are equal to bears in robusticity at the highest level, as the highest level of bears are the short-faced species.)

Cursoriality is a difficult one. Our conclusions, or at least mine, have been explained on what basis they are throughout the thread. Looks like a published work agrees. What's your basis? Provide the list of the characteristics you found on "thousands" of fossils, not only your final conclusion. Maybe asking for the details may come off as a bit rude, but when the allotment of entirety of published data stemming from the 19th century comes nowhere close to that number, including Dr. Marciszak's full, thorough review of P. fossilis records, alongside the fact that fossils are scattered all around the world's museum, the claim is suspect with all due respect, even if that is/was your sole profession. We need data to progress as we emphasize over and over, so I ask. Regardless, the bones are robust enough compared to the modern species that cursoriality's negative allometry in terms of mass is offset. 

On P. spelaea/fossilis speciation. Why do you disregard more modern studies on their phylogeny and stick with older studies? Next, we all acknowledge that these two giants are of the lion clad, only that being a subspecies may not be the true relationship as new evidence indicates. If the Ngandong tiger grouping does not fit you, I agree a bit. It might have been its own species in the tiger clad, but the Sumatran tiger indicates there was interbreeding between the Sonda and mainland forms, indicating something more toward a subspecies/ecotype.

Where are we downsizing anything? We discussed transitional forms in the manner Sotnikova, Sabol, and Marciszak did. Your take of the evolutionary situation does not have to be agreed upon by the rest. 

When referecing AVA, please just restate the data, I wasn't around and in depth to the extent I am today back then. 

On models and bias. I am not sure where I can insert personal biases to a straight regression line produced by measured datapoints. Most data comes Christiansen, and a few my own, unless you think I'd go measure the museum records in a way that suits your view of my "biased" personality? I know I have not done that, and my supervisors would agree. I am not sure of what mathematical methods you use, as you have levels for your estimates. Mind shedding some light on that? Is it a regression with the levels indicating the slope's confidence intervals? No, something else? Where do you get your databases from. Releasing this info won't hurt you, as these sources are public anyhow. As I've stated before, most personal ones are from Smithsonian's NMNH.

On bias that you feel we are plagued with and you are much above. I'm sure both you and I would have underlying biases, it's human nature. Though, like we have, don't point fingers and ignore one's owns biases. Up until now, nowhere have I attacked your personality when we disagree, as we do most of the time. You on the other hand like to slide accusations of bias and a lack of brain to those who disagree with you, a bit eloquently to fit the nice writing style you have of course. If you'd like to continue, let's debate and discuss the ideas we present, not who we are. Also, let's not present our take of the situation as the final word and the most "sensible." I recognize your right to have your view and respect it, hopefully you can find it in your heart to respect our take. In other words, write a like a legitimate scientific paper , no adjective to describes the the quality of the idea proposed, refuted, or discussed (at least how they have us do it now). If this style does not suit you, I'll let you be you and move on, no hard feelings.



 
4 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply




Messages In This Thread
RE: Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines - tigerluver - 03-02-2015, 11:27 PM
Sabertoothed Cats - brotherbear - 06-11-2016, 11:59 AM
RE: Sabertoothed Cats - peter - 06-11-2016, 04:28 PM
Ancient Jaguar - brotherbear - 01-04-2018, 12:45 AM



Users browsing this thread:
3 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB