There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 3 Vote(s) - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#76
( This post was last modified: 08-30-2014, 09:20 AM by GuateGojira )

FASCINATING!!! [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Could you post the bone without the rules over it? I will like to use your image for a collage of the entire evolution of the tiger.

Sadly, the page was ripped, but those old books put images to close to the core of the book, so like you say, it is impossible to take a clear scan without take it out. [img]images/smilies/confused.gif[/img]
 
1 user Likes GuateGojira's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#77
( This post was last modified: 08-30-2014, 09:24 PM by tigerluver )

Smilodon

I'll add some more info on Smilodon populator as requested. Last I mentioned was that it was more robust than a bear bone of greater length, that's some serious muscle. So I decided to quickly apply the dimensions of the largest Smilodon specimen (Length = 387.5 mm and HLM = 44.7 mm) to bear regression published in Figuerido et al. (2010). The length formula yielded a mass of 308.7 kg, and the HLM formula a mass of 437.3 kg, averaging 373 kg. These estimates are slightly greater (10-20 kg) than their counterparts based on purely felid data (360 kg).

So at this point, regression has only estimated Smilodon populator at up to 373 kg. Though, there's a bear specimen of similar length and diameter that weighs 440 kg, quite a bit heavier. My explanation for this discrepancy goes down to database. It seems for both bears and cats, using individual species as a datapoints yields underestimates. I've found its more accurate when you use similar sized individual specimens as datapoints. The bear equation also has one major flaw. It uses published average masses of each species rather than the masses of the bone specimens themselves as the "y-value" data, and simply put, such estimates may not be reflective of reality due to this.

Even using tiger data (the thinnest bone yet most dense Pantherine) for Smilodon populator gives an average mass of around 400 kg. The main inhibitor is that bone diameters seem a bit limited in how heavy they can make an animal, add to that Smilodon isn't a long boned animal. In the end, Smilodon is the toughest to estimate, but from what we have, the largest specimen of Smilodon probably weighed up to 440 kg and a weight of 400 kg is just as likely, as the single bear used for comparison may have been somewhat overweight.

PS. I've editted my last post with more detail.
4 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
#78

Thank you Tigerluver. At roughly 4 feet high at shoulder height, Smilodon populator, it appears, was roughly within the size range of large grizzlies or perhaps  the coastal brown bears. He was monstrous!
1 user Likes brotherbear's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#79
( This post was last modified: 11-10-2014, 11:12 AM by GuateGojira )

Size of the Smilodon - comparative images:

Here are two images that I made some time ago, in order to see the size of the Smilodon (two species) compared with the tiger and the famous Barbourofelis fricki, the largest of its species. I simple don't trust the images of Roman Uchitel, as I have found several inaccuracies on his images and scales. These are reconstructions from the famous Mauricio Anton, and scaled with the published measurements. Check them now:

*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author


Interesting as we can see, the largest Barbourofelis fricki was no larger (and apparently nor heavier) than a large modern tiger, the largest skull was much smaller (c.330 - 340 mm of B. fricki against the 383 - 406 mm for an Amur tiger). On the other hand, we had read several times that the Smilodon fatalis was "about the same size than a lion", but we know that a modern lion is VERY variable, so which was its size? In fact, S. fatalis was very variable like the modern great cats and the largest Smilodon fatalis were as large as the largest lions and tigers on record, and slightly more heavier (c.210 cm in head-body and 280 kg).

Finally, on the Smilodon populator robustness, check this draw from the great Mauricio Anton:

*This image is copyright of its original author

That is not a cat, that is a TANK! Wow, that beast was spectacular in its time! I love this giant. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
5 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

India sanjay Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
*****
#80

Absolutely Awesome. TFS Guate
1 user Likes sanjay's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
#81

~According to information found at   http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/   the Ngandong tiger averaged roughly 518 pounds ( 235 kg ). It is my understanding that Panthera atrox averaged roughly 560 pounds ( 254 kg ). Your thoughts...   
1 user Likes brotherbear's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#82
( This post was last modified: 12-07-2014, 10:01 PM by GuateGojira )

The link doesn't work, but I found this one there: http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/t...llTo=19471

@Vodmeister, which is my friend too, is INCORRECT this time.

There is no such thing as an average of 235 kg for the Ngandong tiger, where did Vodmeister get that???[img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img]  That is the average of the male Bengal tigers from Nepal (Smith et al. 1983).

There are only 7 specimens of Ngandong tigers available, all of them fragmentary (although complete in they single form), from different individuals and from different sexes, there are three carnassial teeth, one single skull, one mandible, two humerus and the huge femur (I repeat, none of them from the same specimen). Using the formulas of Van Valkenburg (1990), Legendre & Roth (1988), Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2005; 2009), the smallest and the largest Ngandong specimen were of 143 - 368 kg (smallest female - largest male, respectively). As you can see, the figure of 235 kg is incorrect (where it came from?), as it use all the specimens without discriminating the age or sex.

On the other hand, the average figure of 255 kg for Panthera atrox is only for MALES. The smallest male was of 199 kg and the largest of 351 kg. That is a completely different form, because Christiansen & Harris (2009) do manage to classify only the males, so its average is correct.

@brotherbear, check this topic, here are the full calculations from all the available specimens of the Ngandong tiger. Apart from them, there are no new specimens reported: http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/21/bo...ISC_skXK7U

Special view on post 91, there are the weights and the full chart.

Finally, there is no such thing as an average of 235 for Ngandong tigers. In fact, if we use only the large specimens, estimated to be "males", the average will be of 274.6 kg (n=5; range 222.5 - 368.2 kg). Hope this helps to clarify the issue. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
 
4 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#83
( This post was last modified: 12-08-2014, 01:15 AM by tigerluver )

The 235 kg average has no basis, as Guate confirmed. The specimens we have average around 300 kg in my report, albeit there is a significant difference between the 470 kg specimen (even though there are 7 fossils, this one is an outlier) and the other two males estimated in 270-320 kg range specimens. Don't get too confused by the difference the numbers Guate and I give, it's due to myself using some extra measurements of the fossils I took myself and my own equations from databases in my area. Point is that 235 kg is much too low no matter which way you look at it. 

Here's a summary of all mass estimates from my database. Greatest mass in parenthesis.

At the moment, off length dimensions only, the ranks are as follows:
1. Ngandong tiger - Femoral length (409 kg)
2. Cromerian lion - Ulna Length (400 kg)
3. American lion - Femoral Length (350 kg)
3. Cave lion was the same size as the modern lion in this measurement
4. Smilodon populator was the same size as the modern lion and tiger in this measurement

Off width dimensions only:
1. Ngandong tiger - Femoral DAW (531 kg)
2. American lion - Femoral DAW (500 kg)
3. Smilodon populator - Humeral DAP (497 kg)
4. Cromerian lion - no width dimensions available for largest specimen, although femur data shows a species with slightly thinner bones than the modern lion
5. Cave lion - Slightly larger than modern lion

Taking into all measurements:
1. Ngandong tiger (470 kg)
2. Smilodon populator (440 kg)
3. American lion (415 kg)
4. Cromerian lion (400 kg)
5. Cave lion (272 kg)

Previously, I was under the assumption that P. atrox was a bit smaller than P. fossilis. But after comparing diameters, the largest of P, atrox (450 mm of massive DAW=120 mm), edges P. fossilis.

In terms of length measurements, all species are assumed to be as dense as tigers. In terms of width, only the Ngandong tiger was given an only tiger database for estimation, as tiger's are slender boned for their density. Smilodon was shared with bears. The "lions" were based on a mix of tigers and modern lions.
 
5 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

United States Siegfried Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
***
#84

These weights are pure conjecture, right?
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#85
( This post was last modified: 12-08-2014, 02:43 AM by tigerluver )

Mathematical based predictions rather than a theory or guesswork, completely objective. Equation of size correlation are generated from modern data to predict masses of specimens far beyond the modern range. Strong accuracy of the equation with modern, proven specimens indicates that more likely than not the fossil specimens estimated were of the weights estimated by the equation (obviously we cannot predict exact weight, but equations ideally give something in the logical ballpark). Take a look at the past pages with graphs to show you the math behind it. 
4 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#86
( This post was last modified: 12-08-2014, 09:42 AM by GuateGojira )

(12-08-2014, 02:11 AM)'Siegfried' Wrote: These weights are pure conjecture, right?

 
No conjecture here, Siegfried. Tigerluver and I have made a hard and long work with all these formulas.

In my case, I used the formulas of Van Valkenburg (1990) and Legendre & Roth (1988) for dentition and skulls, also Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2005; 2009) for long bones and skull too. The formulas of Anyonge (1993) were not used as they give wrong results because he included bears and canids in they samples. For more data, check the links that I provided in my last post. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

In the case of Tigerluver, which is a Biology student in the University, he developed his own formulas with a large database and his results most be taken in count. He will publish his data soon in a scientific journal or his thesis.
 
5 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#87

A great work by Adrian Marciszak published this year on Panthera gombaszoegensis. He's relatively new on the scene, but his ability to find rare data and compile into wonderfully worded reports is excellent. Great person to discuss with as well, he's more than willing to share his databases.

 

Attached Files
.pdf   pgambo.pdf (Size: 1.39 MB / Downloads: 104)
4 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Indonesia WaveRiders Offline
Member
**
#88
( This post was last modified: 01-27-2015, 01:02 PM by WaveRiders )

Hello to everybody,
 
after a few years since when I had to disappear again from AVA forum I recently enter the website to see what was going in it and realized it apparently mostly died. I therefore looked for where my old friends have been posting and find you in this board, read some quite interesting posts and decided to register.
 
First of all please allow me to congratulate to all of you for the excellent research and info you have keep going posting. Unfortunately my life does not allow me to be as consistent in posting as some of you are. I really wish I could.
 
Adrian Marciszak, Charles Schouwenburg and Robert Darga have definitely the great merit, among others, in their 2014 scientific publication (circulated in the internet since late 2013) on fossil lion size temporal evolution to have finally noticed and reported for the first time in 23 years after the original report the intact giant 3rd Metatarsal as long as 192 mm. This fossil remain is described together with many others as part of the initial findings of Dr Argant research in the Chateau Breccia published in a 1991 work. Marciszak and his co-authors described the size of this fossil as incredible.
 
I am very much grateful to them as it seemed before their publication I was the only one to have noticed the exceptional size of this specimen as well as that of another individual from the same site nearly as large as the former.
 
You may remember I wrote in early January 2012 in AVA about an absolute monster Panthera (leo) spelaea fossilis individual (I classify the species following a mix of the old school of thought from Kurten, Hemmer, Turner, Yamaguchi and others. as well as that from most recent taxonomy by Argant, Baryshnikov, Sotnikova and others) that got me sick and caused me headache thinking at his size. This has happened for many years particularly after I had the opportunity to discuss a few issues of the Chateau fossil remains with Dr Argant (several years before 2012) who basically confirmed me the measurements of that exceptional specimen.
 
The big boy was just the 192 mm MT3 individual! 192 mm of bone that nearly caused me a hearth attack when I was studying the first time the fossil carnivore material from Chateau.
 
On that circumstance Dr. Argant also confirmed me that another MT3 specimen missing the distal epiphysis I questioned him was estimated by him as likely long as ca. 190 mm if intact (I had estimated the total length at ca. 187 mm based on multi regression equations based on the other provided measurements). From my study on the Chateau Breccia large carnivores remains I concluded that the latter specimen was the remain of a 2nd huge individual different from the aforementioned one and just very slightly smaller and that therefore at least two monsters had found death in the cave. Throughout the years before 2012 I remember to have had discussions on those findings with likely at least two very much worldwide acknowledged fossil felid authorities, personal friends of mine, but with no follow ups.
 
Anyway, I still cannot believe that the size of this specimen(s) got unnoticed in the whole of the scientific community for 22 years but for me and the original author before 2013. I believe to date no other fossil felid specimen represented by any kind of complete or incomplete cranial or postcranial bone or teeth whose measurements have been either published or unpublished but known to me matches him in body size and mass although a few other fossilis and spelaea specimens are not too far off from it and the heaviest Smilodon populator individuals are also reasonable close to him in body mass (but not in overall size).
 
Has somebody an idea what does it mean a fossil lion with a 192 mm MT3? If not think that the MT3 of a modern average male lion falls in the range 135-140 mm and that of a large modern male lion in the range 140-145 mm. We are therefore talking of a major metapodial of a lion-like creature over 40% and over 33% larger then the one of an average size and of a large Recent male lion respectively! Although in the case of Middle Pleistocene lion it is much harder to get conclusions on allometric relationships to get external body proportions with the same amount of accuracy then for the Upper Pleistocene form, to be conservative we can apply isometry instead of the possible slight negative allometry of MT3 of the Upper Pleistocene form compared to the modern lion as suggested by several authors as well as by me. This negative allometry appears to be supported by the apparent elongation of second and fifth MT, as well as MC, with respect of 3rd and 4th MT  and MC respectively suggesting a less specialized cursorial morphometric adaptation of P. spelaea with respect of P. leo. My past studies additionally suggest skull size and body size raise from a likely slight negative allometry with respect of MT3 length in Panthera leo to a likely fractionally positive one in Panthera leo spelaea (isometry in all cases is strongly included in the 95% Confidence Interval). To let understand the matter better to all of you I summarize the concept saying that it appears a fossil lion with a 192 mm MT3 would likely be slightly larger then a modern lion individual with a 192 mm MT3 (assumed that were possible and it is not). Irrespective of using allometric or isometric regression equations, we are going to materialize a true monster felid which you may remember I estimated weighing most likely 385-405 kg with best estimate 390+ kg. I have not refined my quite complex models since mid 2012 due to other priorities despite some new findings and my ever expanding database, but I believe I would still fall into numbers close to those figures (ca. 395 kg). In accordance to what I briefly suggested in an old post in AVA forum I state again that according to my models the straight line head-and-body length of this individual would likely have approached 2550 mm and the standing shoulder height nearly 1400 mm. I also estimate the greatest skull length likely approaching 530 mm and the condylobasal length over 460 mm. That was a hell of a cat!
 
I therefore found the 192 mm MT3 individual somewhat incompatible for size with the 484,7 mm skull specimen revealed in Marciszak et al. (2014) paper following Argant unpublished data, and, to a slightly lesser extent, the incomplete 187-190 mm MT3 individual as well. At the time I talked with Dr. Argant many years ago he actually anticipated me that the diggings restarted in 1996 had recently terminated (2007) and that much more material was going to be studied. He told me many more remains either intact, incomplete or fragments have been found. Unfortunately I had no opportunity to talk again with Dr Argant and visit him and his new collection. Hopefully it will be possible for me to do it in the future.
 
Other then the two extremely large MT3 within the Chauteau sample published in details to date there are some very large calcanei and astragali, a few very large incomplete femora and another MT3 fragment with a very large distal epiphysis whose length I estimate ca. 178 mm (170-180 mm if you like). Additionally we have one large and one very large skull whose prosthion-inion length of 465 mm and 484,7 mm have recently been unveiled although the existence had been anticipated in 2007.
 
The fossil lion sample from Chateau described by Argant in 1991 and successively following the excavation started in 1968 is exceptional for the average size and size range of the specimens. The sample show an evident bimodal size distribution suggesting very much marked sexual dimorphism. When I studied the Chateau carnivore remains well over a decade ago I sexed 6 fossil lion specimens as females and 24 as males, a figure raised to 26 with the two skulls from the Northern Section whose total lengths and least breadth at the canine alveoli have been generously anticipated by Argant to Marciszak et al. for their 2013/2014 publication. In the attempt to provide a scientifically solid enough suggestion of how many distinct individuals these 32 specimens represent considering the available information of stratigraphy distribution, taphonomic study of the bone accumulation, body side and size compatibility. I cautiously suggest that they could be as low 4 males and 2 females to at least 6 males and 3 females. In recent years I have been anxiously awaiting for new detailed reports as nearly 10 years ago Argant anticipated 4 complete and 13 fragmented skulls, 8 complete and 15 fragmented hemimandibles, a few tenths of complete and fragmented limb long bones and over 100 complete and fragmented metapodials, etc. for a total of 929 remains (including an incomplete skeleton and several articulated bones belonging to the individual having the 484,7 mm skull as well to other individuals) were found in the Northern Section. He has not yet described them in details. The number of fossil lion individuals from Chateau can therefore well substantially rise and be counted in 2 figures.
 
From the study I did over a decade ago based on Argant (1991) material it appears that the two huge MT3 individuals and the recently unveiled 484,7 mm skull individual are, to my current knowledge, the three largest individuals from Chateau. I estimate the latter individual at around 355 kg, most likely in the 345-370 kg range. This skull specimen matches very well the size of the aforementioned MT3 fragment estimated by me likely 175-180 mm in total length and that of other remains, but I cannot say if belonging to the same individual or not due to a number of issues featuring the site including mudflows occurring over time and lack of enough information on the most recent excavations. Most other male specimens, including the individual with 465 mm skull, fall into the weight range 300-350 kg and approximately 23% of them most likely in the 280-300 kg range.
 
As I wrote in AVA over 3 years ago my most likely average body mass range for fully adult Panthera (leo) spelaea fossilis males is not less then 250 kg and up to the unbelievable figure of 315 kg. Best estimates of average weight fall around 305 kg (280-315 kg) for males and around 185 kg (180-195 kg) for females. My best averages for Chateau Breccia male and female fossil lion samples approach the figures of 325 kg and 200 kg respectively.
 
Again, as I wrote in AVA over 3 years ago, I firmly state again that till new evidence will suggest differently in the future, I have and I have always had NOT A SINGLE DOUBT for very many years that the gigantic Cromerian Panthera (leo) spelaea fossilis has been the largest felid and the largest fossil lion form ever existed challenging the monstrous Lujanian Smilodon populator as the heaviest felid, but more then likely not topping him in body mass.
 
I hope now there are no more doubts on what I firmly stated years ago on the average size of Panthera leo fossilis and its largest unearthed individual.
 
 
                          WaveRiders
 

 
7 users Like WaveRiders's post
Reply

India sanjay Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
*****
#89

Hello @WaveRiders , Welcome to the forum.
Excellent first post, Since few of us including me were not following you on AVA(we join AVA very late), so this post is awesome source of information.
Looking for more such great articles.
1 user Likes sanjay's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#90
( This post was last modified: 01-28-2015, 04:03 AM by tigerluver )

Excellent analysis. Albeit, metacarpals and skulls of prehistoric species is relatively senstive, and similarly to your findings, I find to be negatively related to mass in terms of allometry for modern species at least. Metapodials in my opinion are the weakest in size determination, just look at the Wahnsien fossils, extremely robust but certainly not from excessively large individuals. Many prehistoric felids have larger nasal aperture areas as well, highly indicative of cursoriality (Torregrosa et al. 2010). Thus, they would be longer limbed but not as proportionately heavy. This trend stops at P. spelaea according to Marciszak for the lion clad, but is still significantly prevalent in P. fossilis (both long bones and skull). Therefore, it is possible that the huge digit could exaggerate actual body mass.

Nevertheless, have you read of the 465 mm ulna? I can post the excerpt here if the viewers would like (same for the paper on the skull). In my view, that represents the largest specimen of P. fossilis (around 400 kg and probably no less from my regression estimate), as long bones are best represented of size/mass. There is also a 470 mm femur which is officially wrongly attributed to P. spelaea, although it's relatively slender for the lion clad.

Also, please check out my S. populator analysis, I had a hard time justifying it to be over 400 kg from fossil evidence. 
4 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB