Smilodon populator

[jrocks]

(05-06-2022, 05:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 02:39 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 12:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Nice find @GuateGojira. You lead me to find the paper describing the skull:
https://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/10390

Wooooow! Great information man, thank you for sharing.

Now, if I am not mistaken, this table is about all the bones of the specimen asociated, correct?

*This image is copyright of its original author

If that is correct, the bones are not exceptional at all, in fact, they are average for Panthera atrox and just slightly longer than the biggest modern tigers. And checking the skull, it is so crushed that it could be possible that its sceptional length could be just an efect of that?

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, this is the skull CHA.1‑98‑C3‑246 of 483.6 mm, is very flat and deformed, but please tell me your appreciation.

The associations are a bit unclear. 

Here is the grid from Argant (1991) that we base this discussion on:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another view of the stratigraphy from another Argant work. The bones are found in piles essentially. The identification tags of the bones are descriptors of the coordinates they were found.

 

*This image is copyright of its original author

I believe the table for Panthera gombaszogensis does show the assumed to be associated individual. In Argant (2011), they state these pieces come from the same individual:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This individual is from F.8-G.8:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The post-cranial material in the table spans the same areas:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now I do not think the skeleton is in perfect articulation. Take a look at their figure (red is tibia, yellow is skull) of how the bones are found:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The identification for the skull is CHA 1-00-F8-73. The identification of the tibia CHA 1-00-F8-40. F8 is the column/row combination. 00, 73, and 40 must be some type of coordinates within the square. These should be the specimens in the table as if we measure from the photo, they are about the same length just as the table reads. I am also more certain these are the associated skull and tibia referenced in the skeletal diagram as the tibia is the right tibia (droit) and in the diagram, the right tibia is shown as found.

Therefore, the fact the in the P. gombaszogensis most of the bones are from F.8 indicates that the detailed bones are from the proposed articulated individual. The bones under F.7 and G.8 are also bones from the proposed skeleton as these range falls under "F8-G8" as shown in the excerpt above.

I get more uncertain with the lion though.

The only material Argant has published publicly where he declare explicit association are some hindfoot bones was in his 1991 work. The quote (translated) reads:

"Bones in anatomical connection:
Note in square C.3 the existence of bones of two hind legs of the same individual very large, still partially included in a breach block (already noted in the previous list).
- Left paw; Mtt.2 (C.3-196), Mtt.3 (C.3-196), Mtt.4 (C.3-196), cuboid (C.3-196), 3° cuneiform (C.3-196), phal.l (C.3-196), phal.2 (C.3-196).
- Right leg; Mtt.2 (C.3-201), Mtt.3 (C.3-204), Mtt.4 (C.3-205), astragalus (C.3-215), calcaneus (C.3-210), 2° cuneiform (C.3-211), 3° cuneiform (C.3-211), phal.l - residual finger.l (C.3-210), phal.l - finger.3 (C.3-206), phal.2 - finger.3 (C.3-213), phal.2 (C.3-207), phal.3 (C.3-208), sesamoids ( C.3-204, C.3- 205)."

So these bones are found in articulation as they are in the same square (C3) and the closeness of the 3-digit number indicates they are centimeters from each other. The identifications on the bones in the lion table don't show that they were found in such articulation. Given the way Argant has approached the P. gombaszogensis skeleton, this does not mean the bones are not from the same individual. For ease of reference, here is the lion table:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now look the first grid in this post and put together the spatial locations of the bones. The skull is in the C3 square, interestingly where the foot bones were found. However, given there is an Mtt4 tagged as CHA 1-99-C5-162, if this table is asserting the listed bones are from the same individual then the skull is not of the aforementioned associated foot bones. Moving forward, spatially the femur and tibia look to be next to each other and reasonably could be associated. The front limb bones are not from as close a location, but looking at the grid would be only a few meters apart. The skull itself, found in C3, would be a few meters apart from the rest of the referenced bones as well. Based on P. gombaszogensis, the number "98" has some significance too.

So now the quote noted by @GuateGojira:

*This image is copyright of its original author

"Near the skull" probably fits within the few meter span. But the second figure in this post shows there are lot of other lion fossils around the area. However, a lot of these are recorded before the Chateau skull in Argant (1991) and are found in most often outside of C and D. So for sure the table represents findings beyond the initially already very large sample. So there is some evidence for the table showing associated elements.

My concern is that the mandible is already mentioned in Argant and Brugal (2017) and seems to be an isolated hemimandible. The Chateau skull is said to have both mandibles associated so either the 280 mm is a different individual or was removed from the skull. The fact that the mandible is not broken indicates to me it is of a different individual. So does that also apply to the other bones?

One thing is that none of the post cranial bones (both the individually mentioned fossils and the average) that are good mass predictors (femur, humerus, and less so ulna, radius, and tibia) show an exceptionally immense animal. So if the post-crania of the Chateau skull is cataloged in there somewhere, its head was quite big for its body. 

Forgive my typos, I will (maybe) correct them when I have more time. This analysis may change as I work on getting more information.

Edit:

Another thought came to mind. Argant states that the skull's great preservation indicates rapid burial. By that idea, the rest of the body should also have been rapidly buried and therefore, should be equally as well preserved. This might be reason for the complete long bones being from the same skull, as intrinsically the bones being intact hints at them joining the skull the moment of the rapid burial event.

Hi @tigerluver,

what do you think the weights are at for the largest specimens of these prehistoric cats

jrocks Reply