Smilodon populator

[jrocks]

(05-28-2022, 09:59 PM)ere LonePredator Wrote:

(05-28-2022, 09:03 PM)jrocks Wrote:

(05-28-2022, 09:14 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(05-28-2022, 09:04 AM)jrocks Wrote:

(05-28-2022, 06:26 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(05-28-2022, 06:13 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(05-28-2022, 03:39 AM)jrocks Wrote: Hi Guate, i was just curious about if the 16.07 inch skull were to have its weight calculated the same way that 436 kg was calculated for 15.4 inch skull, how much would it have weighed

jrocks

Apart from all the issues with that formula, the main problem is that the formula of Van Valkenburgn (1990) use the Condylobasal length, not the Greatest length (an error that many people made when they use it), and as you already probably know, we don't know the CBL of the giant skull. We can speculate based in the known specimens, but it will be a calculation over an asumption. 

This is the formula, by the way, using only felids: log mass = 3.11 * log CBL - 5.38

Do you mean to say that the 15.4 inch was the CBL while the 16.04 inch was the GSL?

And can you please tell me the source of the CBL regression equation which you mentioned?

no they are 2 separate skulls, one is the one found uruguay which had a GSL of 15.4 inches and its CBL was 14.9 inches, the other is called smilodon bonaeresis 10-1 and its GSL is 16.07 inches, however its CBL isnt known

Okay, then you can use isometry but the result will be unreliable because of using only a single isometric calculation.

Nevertheless, if you isometrically scale a Populator specimen of 15.4 inches which weight 436kg then a specimen of 16.04 inches would be 495kg assuming isometry within both specimens.

BUT this result is *not* reliable  because we just used a single calculation and making calculation using only a single dimension or single calculation often gives wrong weight estimates.

One more reason this is unreliable is because as @GuateGojira stated, the 436kg estimate itself may be inaccurate.

If you can find a regression equation between weights and GSL then you may be able to get an actually reliable estimate (possibly an equation specifically made for Smilodon Populators)

You can use the same relation between GSL and CBL as you have in the smaller skull and then use that to estimate the weight from Guate’s formula but like Guate said, that would be all guesswork and that will also become unreliable in that sense.

dang with that isometry formula it can weigh a crazy amount, as for the 15.4 inch skull does guat think 436 kg is an overestimate or an underestimate, also is it known how much smilodon bonaerensis 10-1 weighs as its full skeleton is completely preserved

I’ll have to check to make sure but probably an overestimate if you estimate this one with the Christiansen & Harris estimate as reference.

And as far as I remember I think I had seen a weight estimate for that particular fully preserved specimen but I don’t remember an exact number so if I see it, I’ll tell

oh shooot my bad, i meant say smilodon bonaerensis 46, not bonaerensis 10-1, bonaerensis 46 is the one with a full skeleton not 10-1 Reply