Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

[peter]

(09-28-2015, 10:19 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Maybe 1000 pounds? Since the body mass can weigh 100 times as the skull based on the symmetric proportion.

Species                      gender          body weight      skull length   skull weight     remarks

P. onca                         ♀                     045 kg.                   236,56               0,550 kg.              Black female killed by a male jaguar during courtship in a zoo.

P. leo                            ♂                     280 kg.                    378,00               2,450 kg.              Large prime male lion killed during transport to a Dutch zoo.
 
P. leo                            ♂                     160 kg.                    362,92               1,755 kg.              Died of old age in a German zoo. He was large in his prime.

P.t. tigris                       ♀                    081 kg.                   297,60                0,975 kg.             Died of old age in a Dutch zoo.

P.t. tigris                       ♀                    105 kg.                   308,54                1,194 kg.             Died of an unknown disease in her prime in a German zoo.  

P.t. tigris                       ♂                    122 kg.                   313,60                1,260 kg.             Born blind in a Dutch zoo and died at an early age as an adult.

P.t. tigris                       ♂                    104 kg.                   348,00                1,390 kg.              Disabled male tiger. The animal died of old age in a Dutch zoo.

P.t. tigris                       ♂                      -                              412,75                2,211 kg.              Shot in his prime by the daughter of Sir J. Hewett. The tiger was 10.2 'over curves'.

              
These are the only ones of which I have data regarding body mass, greatest total skull length and skull weight. Apart from the last, all animals were born in captivity. The last most probably is representative to a degree regarding skull weight and body mass. Hewett wrote it was the finest male tiger he saw. Based on the data of others of similar length I have (same region), my guess is he could have been close to 500 pounds empty (226,80 kg.). This means his mass could have been 100-110 times the weight of his skull. The skull was measured and weighed by a professional taxidermist (Van Ingen), meaning length and weight are reliable. Compared to other skulls of wild Indian tigers, the skull is very long and light.

The captive male lion was measured and weighed by Dr. P. van Bree. He said it was the largest captive big cat he had seen. At 216,70 cm. in head and body length measured in a straight line, this giant compared to the largest wild tigers I know of. His skull, however, was a bit disappointing in both length and width. Also, the weight of the skull is unreliable. It was much discoloured because of the fat and I had to wash my hands every time I touched it. When in good shape, the skull, for weight, could have been similar to the skull of the Indian tiger Hewett's daughter shot in northern India.  

The old male lion who died in a German zoo (the one with a skull weight of 1,755 kg.) was healthy. Same for the female black jaguar. The tigers in the table above, however, were not. One was born lame, the other was born blind and the two females also struggled with a persistent cough. I noticed time and again that captive tigers often do not compare to their wild relatives. Not even close, they said a century ago. Many succumb to diseases well before their time and even those that get to 10 often are thin as a rail. I don't know why that is, but inbreeding could be a reason, especially in zoos. Circus tigers do way better (I saw large and healthy tigers over 13 more than once), but this door now has been closed. Over here, it was decided that wild animals can't be used in the circus anymore. Lions apparently don't need the circus to stay fit. For some reason, they do quite well in captivity. I've seen plenty of lions between 15-20 and even at a great age they seldom completely desintegrate. Most males over 15 still get to 150 kg. and I saw a few close to 200 kg. when they had to be put down. In many cases, they ended with problems also seen in very old humans.        

One could say that Hewett's tiger suggests that the weight of the skull of a healthy wild male tiger in his prime is about 1% of his body mass, but this particular tiger, although long, had a narrow and light skull. My guess is the ratio is different in other wild male tigers. 

As to extinct big cats. I saw a number of skulls, but not those of P. atrox. I noticed many were moderately long, narrow and, in particular, not as massive as those of modern big cats. Same for the teeth (and the canines in particular). The ratio (skull weight - body mass) no doubt would have been quite different if males of large species, as many think, really exceeded 300 kg. at a regular basis. I don't exclude they could have been large, as there were plenty of very large herbivores back then. 

When large herbivores became more scarce as a result of the climate changes, however, they would have had to adapt to smaller animals. My guess is they would have struggled to maintain their mass. Slashing a hapless giant taken down and kept down by a group is easier than hunting a stocky and agile opponent able to take damage on your own. In order to succeed, you definitely need a skull able to endure pressure. Not a large one, as too heavy, but a compact and wide skull. Smaller cats with small but massive skulls and conical teeth long enough to reach vital organs quickly would no doubt outcompete larger relatives in the long run. A tiger will never thrive in a region with small game, but a lynx would and the outcome of the struggle for survival would be predictable. Unless the big cat can adapt, of course. This is what we see in regions where large animals have disappeared (islands in particular) or where they have become so scarce that hunting just doesn't pay anymore. Lions, living in prides, probably don't need to adapt to the same degree when faced with similar problems. As long as there's a few big animals around, they can stick together and give it a try. They would need more territory to do so, but border problems can be solved by numbers and it beats adapting to baboons or mice. Pride life, I think, is the main reason they show less variation at the level of individuals in that there's no clear reward.

The ultimate hunters probably were and are medium-sized cats (from lynx to leopard). They thrive where large specialists struggle and when these disappear completely, they take their place by adding a few inches and pounds. Happened with leopards in Shri Lanka and Iran and, longer ago, those inhabiting the tropical forests in central Africa and it will no doubt happen again in regions where lions and tigers have been pushed out or exterminated.   

Back to extinct big cats to finish with. I don't doubt some were very large as a result of walking mountains of meat at every doorstep. At their size they would have needed large bones, but I wouldn't get to conclusions on them and today's big cats using bones only. In hunting skill, there probably was no comparison. A true hunter, in excellent conditions, could perhaps exceed 250 kg. empty every now and then in some regions, but bears, more massive than big cats, say this is about the limit. There are no terrestrial true hunters over 300 kg., only would-be hunters and omnivores. My guess is it wasn't much different a million years ago. Reply