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

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 11-26-2018, 09:39 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

(11-26-2018, 09:16 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 05:11 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 04:51 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 01:47 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-22-2018, 09:51 AM)johnny rex Wrote:
(11-21-2018, 09:46 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Based on the femur length to skull ratios of extant tigers, I would say the Padang specimen. 


*This image is copyright of its original author

The average femur length (FL)/condylobasal length (CBL) from the above is 1.23. If we use the lower 426 mm CBL value from post #989 we'd get a femur length of 523 mm. Now the more exceptional a skull, the more we have to think about the possibility of the FL/CBL ratio being closer to 1 rather than what is in extant tigers. Even then, 490-500 mm femur would be in the realm of possibility, thus outsizing the Ngandong femur no matter which way one looks at it.

I see, what do you think of WaveRider's previous statement on the largest skull of prehistoric Panthera leo? He stated "I estimate the equivalent greatest length of skull of the largest Panthera (leo) spelaea individuals unearthed to date I am aware likely at around 500 mm and possibly even 510 mm for a couple of them, therefore approaching the size of the largest Panthera (leo) fossilis specimen known to date (the 192 mm MT3 individual from Chateau) for which I currently estimate with some necessary caution given the extreme size of this metapodial and the kind of bone it is a likely equivalent greatest length of skull in the region of 520 mm (most likely range 500-535 mm and with a 95% Confidence Interval even clearly higher then that).



WaveRiders"

Thoughts?


Dunno, but sound quite dubious to me that Cave lion's skull to rival the largest Cave bear and SF bear.

Also, WaveRiders seemed to refuse to share any of his share of information with us.


I discussed that metapodial in the cave lion thread recently. It is certainly gigantic. The main debatable point is proportions. Extrapolations from one bone to another, especially between different species, comes with a bag of salt. That's why I try to avoid the topic as much as possible. The rest as @GrizzlyClaws stated, we can't say anything as there's no record of them in any form. Dr. Marciszak knows the history of the cave lions' remains inside out and he's yet to make a mention of such.

On that old fragment, there's too much uncertainty in faunal level, range, and morphology. It lies right at the boundary of tiger and cave lion. In post #140 @GuateGojira linked to our old discussions a lifetime ago. The photos unfortunately do not show anymore, but maybe @GuateGojira could repost them if he has them saved somewhere.


I do remember you once stated that the Cromerian lion specimen with the 192 mm MT3 should have a skull in between 450 - 500 mm, but more precisely around the same league with the Chateau giant with 484.7 mm skull. Hence, the largest earlier transitional Panthera spelaea with 475 mm was indeed close to that level as well.

BTW, I think that Waverider has also mixed up the fact that the 192 mm MT3 wasn't from Chateau, but from Central Europe.
500mm skull may belonged to the Panthera (leo) fossil and Panthera (leo) spelaea's population transition? I remember that the 475mm skull also owns some Panthera fossil's characters, basis on these, I just simply analyse whether the supersize Panthera spelaea was the last gigantic Panthera fossil or not? 

BTW, as far as I'm concerned that some of the gigantic Panthera spelaea's specimens also from Central Europe in earlier period,  while in Western Europe, Panthera spelaea's size looks smaller, but on the contrary, Panthera fossil has the largest population at the same region like 484mm skull from France


The 475 mm skull belonged to the earlier Panthera spelaea population with some Panthera fossilis characteristics.

The late Panthera spelaea population got proportionally broader snout, but the maximum size of its skull was only as large as the specimen 2900-3.
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators

@Smilodon-Rex

For now, only @tigerluver is the rightful owner of the Padang mandible, and he is the only person who can eloquently interpret everything about this piece of fossil.

I did remember he had discovered that the Padang mandible was characterized by many broad snout features, and it is considerably broader than the specimen 2900-3.

And we are talking about a muzzle width that is potentially over 150 mm.
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

China Smilodon-Rex Offline
Regular Member
***

(11-26-2018, 09:38 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 09:16 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 05:11 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 04:51 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 01:47 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-22-2018, 09:51 AM)johnny rex Wrote:
(11-21-2018, 09:46 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Based on the femur length to skull ratios of extant tigers, I would say the Padang specimen. 


*This image is copyright of its original author

The average femur length (FL)/condylobasal length (CBL) from the above is 1.23. If we use the lower 426 mm CBL value from post #989 we'd get a femur length of 523 mm. Now the more exceptional a skull, the more we have to think about the possibility of the FL/CBL ratio being closer to 1 rather than what is in extant tigers. Even then, 490-500 mm femur would be in the realm of possibility, thus outsizing the Ngandong femur no matter which way one looks at it.

I see, what do you think of WaveRider's previous statement on the largest skull of prehistoric Panthera leo? He stated "I estimate the equivalent greatest length of skull of the largest Panthera (leo) spelaea individuals unearthed to date I am aware likely at around 500 mm and possibly even 510 mm for a couple of them, therefore approaching the size of the largest Panthera (leo) fossilis specimen known to date (the 192 mm MT3 individual from Chateau) for which I currently estimate with some necessary caution given the extreme size of this metapodial and the kind of bone it is a likely equivalent greatest length of skull in the region of 520 mm (most likely range 500-535 mm and with a 95% Confidence Interval even clearly higher then that).



WaveRiders"

Thoughts?


Dunno, but sound quite dubious to me that Cave lion's skull to rival the largest Cave bear and SF bear.

Also, WaveRiders seemed to refuse to share any of his share of information with us.


I discussed that metapodial in the cave lion thread recently. It is certainly gigantic. The main debatable point is proportions. Extrapolations from one bone to another, especially between different species, comes with a bag of salt. That's why I try to avoid the topic as much as possible. The rest as @GrizzlyClaws stated, we can't say anything as there's no record of them in any form. Dr. Marciszak knows the history of the cave lions' remains inside out and he's yet to make a mention of such.

On that old fragment, there's too much uncertainty in faunal level, range, and morphology. It lies right at the boundary of tiger and cave lion. In post #140 @GuateGojira linked to our old discussions a lifetime ago. The photos unfortunately do not show anymore, but maybe @GuateGojira could repost them if he has them saved somewhere.


I do remember you once stated that the Cromerian lion specimen with the 192 mm MT3 should have a skull in between 450 - 500 mm, but more precisely around the same league with the Chateau giant with 484.7 mm skull. Hence, the largest earlier transitional Panthera spelaea with 475 mm was indeed close to that level as well.

BTW, I think that Waverider has also mixed up the fact that the 192 mm MT3 wasn't from Chateau, but from Central Europe.
500mm skull may belonged to the Panthera (leo) fossil and Panthera (leo) spelaea's population transition? I remember that the 475mm skull also owns some Panthera fossil's characters, basis on these, I just simply analyse whether the supersize Panthera spelaea was the last gigantic Panthera fossil or not? 

BTW, as far as I'm concerned that some of the gigantic Panthera spelaea's specimens also from Central Europe in earlier period,  while in Western Europe, Panthera spelaea's size looks smaller, but on the contrary, Panthera fossil has the largest population at the same region like 484mm skull from France


The 475 mm skull belonged to the earlier Panthera spelaea population with some Panthera fossilis characteristics.

The late Panthera spelaea population got proportionally broader snout, but the maximum size of its skull was only as large as the specimen 2900-3.
 Perhaps if Panthera spelaea could survive up to nowadays, it could looks just modern Asiatic lion's size. compared with Panthera atrox, Panthera spelaea could more able to narrow the self body-size.

 
*This image is copyright of its original author

@tigerluver , could you help me to download and copy the paper ? I would appreciate it if you could help me
1 user Likes Smilodon-Rex's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators

The earlier Panthera spelaea had its body proportion closer to the modern Asiatic lion, and if it can survive with a shrunk body size, it would have looked like a maneless Asiatic lion.

BTW, the Beringian lion looked quite archaic, it did look like a smaller version of the earlier Panthera spelaea.
2 users Like GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

China Smilodon-Rex Offline
Regular Member
***

(11-26-2018, 10:48 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: @Smilodon-Rex

For now, only @tigerluver is the rightful owner of the Padang mandible, and he is the only person who can eloquently interpret everything about this piece of fossil.

I did remember he had discovered that the Padang mandible was characterized by many broad snout features, and it is considerably broader than the specimen 2900-3.

And we are talking about a muzzle width that is potentially over 150 mm.
 If it's true,  the size comparison would like this.

*This image is copyright of its original author

 BTW, according to the 2016 research,  tiger and homotherium and marrian's dog were coexisted together in Pleistocene Java, here is the highlights 
Late Pleistocene tigers of Java belong to the largest known tigers

Tigers on Java had highest competition potential with Merriam's Dog.

Homotherium ultimum had the lowest competition potential with tigers.

New regressions for body mass and prey mass reconstruction for large carnivores were calculated.


*This image is copyright of its original author

Abstract
On Java during the Pleistocene, tigers of more than 300 kg occurred, but these are restricted to a single Late Pleistocene faunal unit, while Early and Middle Pleistocene tigers possessed body masses comparable to those of historic Javanese and extant Sumatran tigers. However, former studies have excluded carnivores from the Middle Pleistocene site of Sangiran where tigers co-occurred with machairodonts (Hemimachairodus zwierzyckii and Homotherium ultimum) and the large Merriam's Dog (Megacyon merriami). The aim of this study is to test if large tiger individuals occurred already in Early and/or Middle Pleistocene sites in Java and evaluate competition potential among carnivores from Sangiran and its consequences.

We calculated body masses and prey mass spectrum for tigers and potential competitors using linear regressions. Niche overlap was then estimated based on the prey mass spectrum after which niche-overlaps were used as indicators for competition potentials. Reconstructed body mass for H. ultimumH. zwierzyckiiM. merriami are 154 kg (comparable to Homotherium from Untermassfeld), 130 kg and 52 kg, respectively. The niche overlap between tigers and Merriam's Dog is highest (100%) while it is comparatively low (60%) between tigers and H. ultimum. Tigers have not increased body mass before Ngandong faunal level, but competitors like Merriam's Dog seem to have decreased body mass to avoid competition with tigers. The sabertoothed cats on the other hand seem to have been unable to adapt to competition and went extinct.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821500601X
 Here is the research link
4 users Like Smilodon-Rex's post
Reply

United Kingdom Ghari Sher Offline
Member
**

OK, so this is a thread which I haven't looked through very deeply, so maybe someone has mentioned this before and I am not aware, but there is a preliminary publication (NOT peer-reviewed) out by Shaheer Sherani, where he comes up with a mass estimate of 486kg for the largest specimen of P. t. soloensis (not sure if that's even a valid subspecies any longer given the recent tiger lumping but there you go), the notorious 480mm femur.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Any thoughts on the validity of this? I have read a lot of the older threads on Tapatalk and other sites where @GuateGojira , @tigerluver, @GrizzlyClaws and a few other have used equations hitherto published to estimate weights of around 350-400kg for the tiger, I thought that the 450+kg weights were all hyperbole.
The other maximum weights he gives seem to be about right based on what I've seen before in the literature, and from using other equations on the same bones, but it's the tiger which sticks out like a sore thumb here.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sabol (2018) cited Sherani's publication as yielding a similar mass estimate for the large male lion from Medvedia (307.5 kg) as others he had worked out using the condylobasal length (301.4 kg)
Quote:Thus, the estimated body mass of this adult male with 390 mm condylobasal length is 301.4 kg. The same estimated average body mass was calculated with data from six specimens of P. atrox (Christiansen and Harris, 2009:943), and the similar average body mass (307.5 kg) was also estimated on the basis of new methodology of Sherani (in press).

So his mass estimates for the other cats seem to at least carry some validity, but I'm a bit puzzled about the tiger weight:

https://peerj.com/preprints/2327/
1 user Likes Ghari Sher's post
Reply

GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
( This post was last modified: 12-02-2018, 11:51 AM by GuateGojira )

(12-02-2018, 08:16 AM)Ghari Sher Wrote: OK, so this is a thread which I haven't looked through very deeply, so maybe someone has mentioned this before and I am not aware, but there is a preliminary publication (NOT peer-reviewed) out by Shaheer Sherani, where he comes up with a mass estimate of 486kg for the largest specimen of P. t. soloensis (not sure if that's even a valid subspecies any longer given the recent tiger lumping but there you go), the notorious 480mm femur.

I am going to coment only regarding the subspecies issue.

The lumping of the tiger subspecies is only for the modern ones, not the prehistoric, for the moment. The Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) was the last Pleistocene subspecies of tigers in the Sunda shelf and direct decendent of the large mainland tiger Panthera tigris acutidens. In this case the subspecies is still valid, for the moment.

Now, all the tigers that evolved after the Toba eruption (c.75,000 years B.C.) came from a single population that was interconnected until about 12,000 years B.C. when the last ice age ended and the Sunda populations were separated forming the subspecies Panthera tigris sondaica, while the mainland populations were completelly interconnected until the arrival of the humans, some populations been separated only about 100-200 years A. C. like the Caspian/Amur tigers or the India/Sundarbans tigers. The diferences on the mainland tiger subspecies Panthera tigris tigris, both in skull and coat pattersn, are minimal and are only clinal.
2 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 12-02-2018, 12:10 PM by GrizzlyClaws )

(12-02-2018, 11:49 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(12-02-2018, 08:16 AM)Ghari Sher Wrote: OK, so this is a thread which I haven't looked through very deeply, so maybe someone has mentioned this before and I am not aware, but there is a preliminary publication (NOT peer-reviewed) out by Shaheer Sherani, where he comes up with a mass estimate of 486kg for the largest specimen of P. t. soloensis (not sure if that's even a valid subspecies any longer given the recent tiger lumping but there you go), the notorious 480mm femur.

I am going to coment only regarding the subspecies issue.

The lumping of the tiger subspecies is only for the modern ones, not the prehistoric, for the moment. The Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) was the last Pleistocene subspecies of tigers in the Sunda shelf and direct decendent of the large mainland tiger Panthera tigris acutidens. In this case the subspecies is still valid, for the moment.

Now, all the tigers that evolved after the Toba eruption (c.75,000 years B.C.) came from a single population that was interconnected until about 12,000 years B.C. when the last ice age ended and the Sunda populations were separated forming the subspecies Panthera tigris sondaica, while the mainland populations were completelly interconnected until the arrival of the humans, some populations been separated only about 100-200 years A. C. like the Caspian/Amur tigers or the India/Sundarbans tigers. The diferences on the mainland tiger subspecies Panthera tigris tigris, both in skull and coat pattersn, are minimal and are only clinal.

The Padang specimen was likely lived after the Toba eruption, so a descendant of the survivors.

However, the Padang specimen was still gargantuan, and it looked like the population had recovered its size in merely thousand years.

Perhaps the main reason of tiger's decreasing size was not the Toba eruption, but the complete change of the ecosystems after the Pleistocene era.
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators

(12-02-2018, 08:16 AM)Ghari Sher Wrote: OK, so this is a thread which I haven't looked through very deeply, so maybe someone has mentioned this before and I am not aware, but there is a preliminary publication (NOT peer-reviewed) out by Shaheer Sherani, where he comes up with a mass estimate of 486kg for the largest specimen of P. t. soloensis (not sure if that's even a valid subspecies any longer given the recent tiger lumping but there you go), the notorious 480mm femur.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Any thoughts on the validity of this? I have read a lot of the older threads on Tapatalk and other sites where @GuateGojira , @tigerluver, @GrizzlyClaws and a few other have used equations hitherto published to estimate weights of around 350-400kg for the tiger, I thought that the 450+kg weights were all hyperbole.
The other maximum weights he gives seem to be about right based on what I've seen before in the literature, and from using other equations on the same bones, but it's the tiger which sticks out like a sore thumb here.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sabol (2018) cited Sherani's publication as yielding a similar mass estimate for the large male lion from Medvedia (307.5 kg) as others he had worked out using the condylobasal length (301.4 kg)
Quote:Thus, the estimated body mass of this adult male with 390 mm condylobasal length is 301.4 kg. The same estimated average body mass was calculated with data from six specimens of P. atrox (Christiansen and Harris, 2009:943), and the similar average body mass (307.5 kg) was also estimated on the basis of new methodology of Sherani (in press).

So his mass estimates for the other cats seem to at least carry some validity, but I'm a bit puzzled about the tiger weight:

https://peerj.com/preprints/2327/

I wonder if the author can access to the actual fossilized materials.

Perhaps only @tigerluver could manage to contract with him?
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
( This post was last modified: 12-02-2018, 12:38 PM by GuateGojira )

(12-02-2018, 12:09 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The Padang specimen was likely lived after the Toba eruption, so a descendant of the survivors.

However, the Padang specimen was still gargantuan, and it looked like the population had recovered its size in merely thousand years.

Perhaps the main reason of tiger's decreasing size was not the Toba eruption, but the complete change of the ecosystems after the Pleistocene era.

The document of Cooper et al. (2016) shows for the first time the reach of the Toba eruption and its significance to the tiger populations. Theorized that the population of tigers in the Sunda shelf shoul be completelly extinct after this even. However it fails in explain how the Sunda tiger populations recovered not only its size but also the narrow skull even after this extinction event. Did the mainland tigers that re-invaded the Sunda just changed to exactly the same characteristics from the previous population, or some Sunda tigers could survive the event. Probably the model from Cooper and his team need to be verified again. That is why I think that the models of Kitchener & Dugmore (1999) are more accurate.
2 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

United States GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators

(12-02-2018, 12:37 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(12-02-2018, 12:09 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: The Padang specimen was likely lived after the Toba eruption, so a descendant of the survivors.

However, the Padang specimen was still gargantuan, and it looked like the population had recovered its size in merely thousand years.

Perhaps the main reason of tiger's decreasing size was not the Toba eruption, but the complete change of the ecosystems after the Pleistocene era.

The document of Cooper et al. (2016) shows for the first time the reach of the Toba eruption and its significance to the tiger populations. Theorized that the population of tigers in the Sunda shelf shoul be completelly extinct after this even. However it fails in explain how the Sunda tiger populations recovered not only its size but also the narrow skull even after this extinction event. Did the mainland tigers that re-invaded the Sunda just changed to exactly the same characteristics from the previous population, or some Sunda tigers could survive the event. Probably the model from Cooper and his team need to be verified again. That is why I think that the models of Kitchener & Dugmore (1999) are more accurate.

According to @tigerluver study, the Padang tiger looked closely related to the modern Mainland tigers by those morphological features.

Perhaps it was a hybrid population between the migrating Mainland tigers and the remaining survivors of the Sunda tiger population after the Toba eruption.

In order to cope this theory, we have to assume that the contemporary Mainland tigers were also gigantic like its Sunda cousins.
1 user Likes GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast

Smilodon populator, Panthera tigris soloensis, Panthera atrox, Panthera spelaea, and a few others it appears ( to me ) that they reached the natural size limit for the big cats.  Happy
2 users Like brotherbear's post
Reply

China Smilodon-Rex Offline
Regular Member
***


*This image is copyright of its original author

Lions size comparison
American Lion (extinct), Mosbach Lion (extinct), Cave Lion (extinct), African Lion and Asiatic Lion.
3 users Like Smilodon-Rex's post
Reply

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

(11-26-2018, 10:49 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 09:38 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 09:16 AM)Smilodon-Rex Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 05:11 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 04:51 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 01:47 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-22-2018, 09:51 AM)johnny rex Wrote:
(11-21-2018, 09:46 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Based on the femur length to skull ratios of extant tigers, I would say the Padang specimen. 


*This image is copyright of its original author

The average femur length (FL)/condylobasal length (CBL) from the above is 1.23. If we use the lower 426 mm CBL value from post #989 we'd get a femur length of 523 mm. Now the more exceptional a skull, the more we have to think about the possibility of the FL/CBL ratio being closer to 1 rather than what is in extant tigers. Even then, 490-500 mm femur would be in the realm of possibility, thus outsizing the Ngandong femur no matter which way one looks at it.

I see, what do you think of WaveRider's previous statement on the largest skull of prehistoric Panthera leo? He stated "I estimate the equivalent greatest length of skull of the largest Panthera (leo) spelaea individuals unearthed to date I am aware likely at around 500 mm and possibly even 510 mm for a couple of them, therefore approaching the size of the largest Panthera (leo) fossilis specimen known to date (the 192 mm MT3 individual from Chateau) for which I currently estimate with some necessary caution given the extreme size of this metapodial and the kind of bone it is a likely equivalent greatest length of skull in the region of 520 mm (most likely range 500-535 mm and with a 95% Confidence Interval even clearly higher then that).



WaveRiders"

Thoughts?


Dunno, but sound quite dubious to me that Cave lion's skull to rival the largest Cave bear and SF bear.

Also, WaveRiders seemed to refuse to share any of his share of information with us.


I discussed that metapodial in the cave lion thread recently. It is certainly gigantic. The main debatable point is proportions. Extrapolations from one bone to another, especially between different species, comes with a bag of salt. That's why I try to avoid the topic as much as possible. The rest as @GrizzlyClaws stated, we can't say anything as there's no record of them in any form. Dr. Marciszak knows the history of the cave lions' remains inside out and he's yet to make a mention of such.

On that old fragment, there's too much uncertainty in faunal level, range, and morphology. It lies right at the boundary of tiger and cave lion. In post #140 @GuateGojira linked to our old discussions a lifetime ago. The photos unfortunately do not show anymore, but maybe @GuateGojira could repost them if he has them saved somewhere.


I do remember you once stated that the Cromerian lion specimen with the 192 mm MT3 should have a skull in between 450 - 500 mm, but more precisely around the same league with the Chateau giant with 484.7 mm skull. Hence, the largest earlier transitional Panthera spelaea with 475 mm was indeed close to that level as well.

BTW, I think that Waverider has also mixed up the fact that the 192 mm MT3 wasn't from Chateau, but from Central Europe.
500mm skull may belonged to the Panthera (leo) fossil and Panthera (leo) spelaea's population transition? I remember that the 475mm skull also owns some Panthera fossil's characters, basis on these, I just simply analyse whether the supersize Panthera spelaea was the last gigantic Panthera fossil or not? 

BTW, as far as I'm concerned that some of the gigantic Panthera spelaea's specimens also from Central Europe in earlier period,  while in Western Europe, Panthera spelaea's size looks smaller, but on the contrary, Panthera fossil has the largest population at the same region like 484mm skull from France


The 475 mm skull belonged to the earlier Panthera spelaea population with some Panthera fossilis characteristics.

The late Panthera spelaea population got proportionally broader snout, but the maximum size of its skull was only as large as the specimen 2900-3.
 Perhaps if Panthera spelaea could survive up to nowadays, it could looks just modern Asiatic lion's size. compared with Panthera atrox, Panthera spelaea could more able to narrow the self body-size.

 
*This image is copyright of its original author

@tigerluver , could you help me to download and copy the paper ? I would appreciate it if you could help me


Sorry just getting to this thread. Here is the link to the paper.
2 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

China Smilodon-Rex Offline
Regular Member
***

(12-04-2018, 07:01 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Smilodon populator, Panthera tigris soloensis, Panthera atrox, Panthera spelaea, and a few others it appears ( to me ) that they reached the natural size limit for the big cats.  Happy
  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

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author
2 users Like Smilodon-Rex'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