Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws

[tigerluver]

@Spalea , regarding sociality, the most recent study to make a conclusions was Bocherens et al. (2011). Isotopic signatures of cave lion bones showed a strong preference for reindeer (Rangifer rangifer) and occasionally cave bear. Bocherens et al. (2011) further predicts that the cave bears eaten were cubs or young based on predatory damage on such fossils (p. 257 in the hyperlinked paper). Both prey species are either smalller than or equal in size to the cave lion. This prey to predator size ratio plus the lack of the male mane has been used as evidence to say the cave lion was solitary (I've not read of females living in prides, I may have missed something). Evidence that could say otherwise would be some cave arts that do show a group of lions as well as the cave lion's open steppe habitat. Universally, forests prevent sociality while open areas allow and may even encourage sociality (you'll find this trend in ungulates, cats, and birds quite easily, see this starling example as support). I can leave the final decision to the reader, but does one think a 200 kg average prey size support a pride of 200 kg (averaging males and females) cave lions? If not, @GrizzlyClaws point on the convergent cranial evolution between the species hinting at lifestyle similarities hold a lot of water. The similarity is striking enough that scientists (before access to molecular technology) have proposed a "Panthera tigris spelaea" (now shown to be incorrect). For instance, Groiss (1990) proposed such based on the narrow braincases of the cave lion and the tiger. Considering convergence occurs when the driving forces behind natural selection are the same between two convergers, it would be logical to assume the cave lion lived somewhat (postcranial anatomy paints a bit different of a picture) like the modern tiger. Reply