Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

[brotherbear]

Would you say that theoretically, 400 kg ( 800 pounds ) is roughly the normal max-weight that big cats might achieve in the wild, with the occasional even bigger freak specimens of course? Reply

[Smilodon-Rex]

(12-19-2018, 06:58 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Would you say that theoretically, 400 kg ( 800 pounds ) is roughly the normal max-weight that big cats might achieve in the wild, with the occasional even bigger freak specimens of course?

 The private specimens are usually bigger than official specimens in maximum size estimation,  I believe as the time flows, more and more gigantic prehistoric big cats specimens would be discovered Reply

[GuateGojira]

(12-19-2018, 06:49 PM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote: Machairodus gigatic also belonged to one of the biggest big cats on the earth, well, it owed the 460MM skull which means it could up to over 400kg body-weight according to the private collection

As far I know, the largest skull found for this group belongs to Machairodus horribilis and measured 415 mm in greatest length. The authors calculated a weight of 405 kg but this is probably not accurate as they used the formula of Van Valkenburg (1990) that use condylobasal length. The problem with this formula is that ignores the intraspecies variations between cat species. For example, using this formula any lion will be heavier than any tiger just because the skull of the lions is longer than that of the tiger. We need to know if Machairodus was a species like the tiger (shorter skull and longer body) or like the lion (longer skull and shorter body) among many other morphological details. Reply

[tigerluver]

(12-20-2018, 08:04 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(12-19-2018, 06:49 PM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote: Machairodus gigatic also belonged to one of the biggest big cats on the earth, well, it owed the 460MM skull which means it could up to over 400kg body-weight according to the private collection

As far I know, the largest skull found for this group belongs to Machairodus horribilis and measured 415 mm in greatest length. The authors calculated a weight of 405 kg but this is probably not accurate as they used the formula of Van Valkenburg (1990) that use condylobasal length. The problem with this formula is that ignores the intraspecies variations between cat species. For example, using this formula any lion will be heavier than any tiger just because the skull of the lions is longer than that of the tiger. We need to know if Machairodus was a species like the tiger (shorter skull and longer body) or like the lion (longer skull and shorter body) among many other morphological details.

This was the skull shared by @Smilodon-Rex :

*This image is copyright of its original author

Seeing how it is measured would indicate the straight line GSL would be somewhat smaller but still very large. Reply

[tigerluver]

This month a paper describing cat species from a cenote in Mexico described a new species termed Panthera balamoides. The paper is attached.

*This image is copyright of its original author

What does everyone think? Distal humeri have a lot of intraspecific varation, and the authors acknowledge the issue, but still believe the new fossil is from a unique species. Could a third, previously undiscovered species exist alongside at least three other cats (P. atrox, P. onca, Smilodon) or is it more likely this new specimen is just another P. onca or P. atrox found in the same locality? Reply

[GuateGojira]

(12-25-2018, 04:24 AM)tigerluver Wrote: This was the skull shared by @Smilodon-Rex :

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Seeing how it is measured would indicate the straight line GSL would be somewhat smaller but still very large.

Now I see, thank you for the update. Yes, the measurements are terrible, I guess that in straight line this skull was probably between 410-420 mm, very large indeed. Reply

[Smilodon-Rex]

(12-25-2018, 08:09 AM)tigerluver Wrote: This month a paper describing cat species from a cenote in Mexico described a new species termed Panthera balamoides. The paper is attached.

*This image is copyright of its original author

What does everyone think? Distal humeri have a lot of intraspecific varation, and the authors acknowledge the issue, but still believe the new fossil is from a unique species. Could a third, previously undiscovered species exist alongside at least three other cats (P. atrox, P. onca, Smilodon) or is it more likely this new specimen is just another P. onca or P. atrox found in the same locality?

 Perhaps it's the transitional panthera species between Panthera atrox and Panthera onca ? Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

Pleistocene Sunda tiger's lower canine tooth

The texture pattern of the fossilization is very reminiscent to those of Southeast Asia, and how does it compare to the Padang mandible? @tigerluver

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[epaiva]

(01-07-2019, 12:11 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Pleistocene Sunda tiger's lower canine tooth

The texture pattern of the fossilization is very reminiscent to those of Southeast Asia, and how does it compare to the Padang mandible? @tigerluver

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

It is a huge lower canine tooth Reply

[tigerluver]

(01-07-2019, 12:11 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Pleistocene Sunda tiger's lower canine tooth

The texture pattern of the fossilization is very reminiscent to those of Southeast Asia, and how does it compare to the Padang mandible? @tigerluver

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So the coloration of the fossils is due to preservation in peat or peat-sediment. Generally all across southeast Asia, pure peat layers are 10,000 years and younger. Peat-sediment layers are around 20,000 years. So this specimen would likely be 10-20 kya old.

The crown length in situ looks to be a bit over 50 mm for the tooth in the third picture and onward (the giant mandible's canine is 65 mm high from the crown). Would you agree this is a lower canine?

Is the second picture a different specimen? It looks to be an upper canine. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(01-08-2019, 02:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(01-07-2019, 12:11 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Pleistocene Sunda tiger's lower canine tooth

The texture pattern of the fossilization is very reminiscent to those of Southeast Asia, and how does it compare to the Padang mandible? @tigerluver

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So the coloration of the fossils is due to preservation in peat or peat-sediment. Generally all across southeast Asia, pure peat layers are 10,000 years and younger. Peat-sediment layers are around 20,000 years. So this specimen would likely be 10-20 kya old.

The crown length in situ looks to be a bit over 50 mm for the tooth in the third picture and onward (the giant mandible's canine is 65 mm high from the crown). Would you agree this is a lower canine?

Is the second picture a different specimen? It looks to be an upper canine.

Pretty sure these are all lower canine tooth, regardless being different specimen.

The upper canine teeth are usually straighter, the crown part is also proportionally longer.

Here is another canine tooth of the prehistoric Sunda tiger from a private collector, and this one was obviously an upper one.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

Here is my interpretation about the proportion of this lower canine tooth.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Sanju]

(12-25-2018, 08:09 AM)tigerluver Wrote: This month a paper describing cat species from a cenote in Mexico described a new species termed Panthera balamoides. The paper is attached.

*This image is copyright of its original author

What does everyone think? Distal humeri have a lot of intraspecific varation, and the authors acknowledge the issue, but still believe the new fossil is from a unique species. Could a third, previously undiscovered species exist alongside at least three other cats (P. atrox, P. onca, Smilodon) or is it more likely this new specimen is just another P. onca or P. atrox found in the same locality?

I saw this few days back in the internet and I believe that a third unique cat lived in America. BTW in comparison between javan leopard and cougar, the humeri of leopard is larger than puma though javan leopards are not that big than others subs of leopards...
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...ode=ghbi20 Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(01-25-2019, 04:31 PM)Sanju Wrote:

(12-25-2018, 08:09 AM)tigerluver Wrote: This month a paper describing cat species from a cenote in Mexico described a new species termed Panthera balamoides. The paper is attached.

*This image is copyright of its original author

What does everyone think? Distal humeri have a lot of intraspecific varation, and the authors acknowledge the issue, but still believe the new fossil is from a unique species. Could a third, previously undiscovered species exist alongside at least three other cats (P. atrox, P. onca, Smilodon) or is it more likely this new specimen is just another P. onca or P. atrox found in the same locality?

I saw this few days back in the internet and I believe that a third unique cat lived in America. BTW in comparison between javan leopard and cougar, the humeri of leopard is larger than puma though javan leopards are not that big than others subs of leopards...
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2018.1556649?journalCode=ghbi20

It would intriguing if the leopard group also managed to migrate to the prehistoric America, which would make them as widespread as the lions in the prehistoric era.

In the modern era, the leopard is by far the most widespread cat. Reply

[smedz]

(01-26-2019, 12:31 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(01-25-2019, 04:31 PM)Sanju Wrote:

(12-25-2018, 08:09 AM)tigerluver Wrote: This month a paper describing cat species from a cenote in Mexico described a new species termed Panthera balamoides. The paper is attached.

*This image is copyright of its original author

What does everyone think? Distal humeri have a lot of intraspecific varation, and the authors acknowledge the issue, but still believe the new fossil is from a unique species. Could a third, previously undiscovered species exist alongside at least three other cats (P. atrox, P. onca, Smilodon) or is it more likely this new specimen is just another P. onca or P. atrox found in the same locality?

I saw this few days back in the internet and I believe that a third unique cat lived in America. BTW in comparison between javan leopard and cougar, the humeri of leopard is larger than puma though javan leopards are not that big than others subs of leopards...
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2018.1556649?journalCode=ghbi20

It would intriguing if the leopard group also managed to migrate to the prehistoric America, which would make them as widespread as the lions in the prehistoric era.

In the modern era, the leopard is by far the most widespread cat.

Honestly, I don't think leopards ever made it to North America due to all the fierce competition. Anyways, so which feline is the biggest pantherine yet discovered Guate, tigerluver? Reply