Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

[tigerluver]

Remember the genetic studies that group the South China tiger pretty much on its own and the study (I forget the name) that mentioned that this species is likely the stem group? Maybe that is why the canine fit better. 

Insular dwarfism probably had to have affected skull morphology to some degree. I wonder have fast the downsizing occurred. Sea levels were still quite low 20 kya (Source and read this source for maps, look at the 120 m and 105 m contour maps). As an analogy, I've read of a dwarf Stegodon of Indonesia that evolved from a larger version 840 kya went extinct around 12 kya, but sea level-wise, dwarf pressures due to spatial limitation shouldn't have occurred until 20 kya. I'm reading up on the potential prey fauna to get clues on how fast the changes may have occurred. This is the reading.

I noticed the drawings of Javan tiger skulls differ a bit from the actual photos I've seen. I wonder if the misfit is just intraspecific variation. Reply

[Fieryeel]

(09-19-2015, 12:23 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @GuateGojira, so would you need the images in vK's book?

I think we can interchange lower and upper canines in photographic overlays easily. Nevertheless, I'm still leaning toward the canines we have been investigating to be lower canines due to the colorations which would show the boundary of the gums. The tapering of the canines at the end also is another piece of evidence to this conclusion in my opinion (I looked through Merriam and Stock and the canine/claws thread and this trend is quite consistent), as stated before. Finally, the lower canines look relatively thinner compared to their height. 

@Fieryeel, would you mind if I cited your canine in my appendix for my studies (I'd cite it as private collection)?

Go ahead.

Are you doing a paper for a degree? Reply

[tigerluver]

@Fieryeel, not for a dissertation, just personal interests with my academic group, one could say. I wish it was a dissertation, I'd actually have time to work on it during the semester. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(09-19-2015, 05:39 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Remember the genetic studies that group the South China tiger pretty much on its own and the study (I forget the name) that mentioned that this species is likely the stem group? Maybe that is why the canine fit better. 

Insular dwarfism probably had to have affected skull morphology to some degree. I wonder have fast the downsizing occurred. Sea levels were still quite low 20 kya (Source and read this source for maps, look at the 120 m and 105 m contour maps). As an analogy, I've read of a dwarf Stegodon of Indonesia that evolved from a larger version 840 kya went extinct around 12 kya, but sea level-wise, dwarf pressures due to spatial limitation shouldn't have occurred until 20 kya. I'm reading up on the potential prey fauna to get clues on how fast the changes may have occurred. This is the reading.

I noticed the drawings of Javan tiger skulls differ a bit from the actual photos I've seen. I wonder if the misfit is just intraspecific variation.

The end of the last glacial period was around 10,500 BC, that's why the sea level was still low until 12 kya.

Maybe insular dwarfism of the Sunda tiger could have been occurred quite late until the end of the Pleistocene era, and there could have few Ngandong tigers that had survived from the Toba Eruption and finally went into the dwarfism process until 12 kya. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

New Amur tiger's subfossil from Manchuria.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[tigerluver]

@GrizzlyClaws, could you post all the subfossils you know of, as well as their locality all in one post? Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

I only know the exact location of two Manchurian subfossils.

This one is from Heilongjiang.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

This one is from Liaoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaoning

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

I guess all those black colored subfossils were from Heilongjiang, because of the Chernozem belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernozem Reply

[genao87]

That new fossil giant was the AMUR???  So it is safe to say that it was the largest modern cat and possibly rival the two Prehistoric Tigers? Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

The subfossil of the Amur tiger is abundant in Manchuria, and we can only assume that they have very large canine teeth.

BTW, I am hoping @tigerluver to reconstruct the skull for both Wanhsien tiger (formerly known as the Woolly tiger or Cave tiger) and Ngandong tiger with the new fossil evidence. Reply

[tigerluver]

I don't think we've met @genao87, so nice to meet you.

A rough stretch just ended for me, so I'm not ignoring any requests on purpose. I really do appreciate everyone who discusses in this topic.

Could you please give me detailed instructions on what exactly you guys are looking for, including which fossils and what type of reconstruction (drawing, measurements)? Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

After fitting the canine into the mandible, what is your approximate length for the mandible and skull? Reply

[Fieryeel]

One more tooth has arrived from Java.

It measures 9.7 cm long, and is 47 grams. Looks and feels like a mini version of my other tooth. Any ideas?

*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

[GrizzlyClaws]

It looks quite odd, but consider that the fossils of the Javan tigers are more fossilized than others', hence it explains the deformed shape. Reply

[tigerluver]

Don't quote me on anything yet, but from the four fittings, @Fieryeel's tooth I get a GSL of 480 mm and ML of 320 mm (Ngandong mandible, the best match we concluded), GSL = 450 mm and ML=293 mm (Longdang tiger), and GSL = 385 mm and ML = 256 mm (Trinil mandible). The Trinil mandibles have really thick canines, the length/height ratio of those is about 0.30, while @Fieryeel's tooth is 0.23 and one we found as a best match about 0.225 as well.


That second fossil looks cat-like as well to me. What is the greatest length on the tooth from the side? That could again be a clue to confirming its owner's identity.

The fossilization pattern looks similar to the one found on P. youngi: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply