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

Italy LoveAnimals Offline
Member
**
( This post was last modified: 05-16-2021, 01:49 PM by LoveAnimals )

@Balam

Man if you see that my comment is full of strange worlds or numbers is Because I copied my whole message before changing the page to get Infos about jaguars on wiki and then pasted it.
I did this because I was afraid to lose all of my text which has already happened if I change page
1 user Likes LoveAnimals's post
Reply

United Kingdom Sully Offline
Ecology & Rewilding
*****

@tigerluver I was wondering if you have any thoughts on post #1152, the new 400kg+ cat machairodus lahayishupup. Could this really rival the likes of populator, ngandong, fossilis etc?
1 user Likes Sully's post
Reply

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

(05-19-2021, 12:28 AM)Sully Wrote: @tigerluver I was wondering if you have any thoughts on post #1152, the new 400kg+ cat machairodus lahayishupup. Could this really rival the likes of populator, ngandong, fossilis etc?


It's certainly an intriguing candidate in the size department. To preface, here are the key measurement and formula information that produced the weights.

The humerus is the longest I've read of. The authors mention it is narrow in articular width which would lighten it up a bit. However, it's unclear where the conclusion comes from as if we compare to Peigne et al. (2005), it's more robust than the Amphimachairodus and about the same as a tiger/lion (TL/MWDH of 3.73, the lower the number the more robust the humerus distally):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Similarly, if we compare the articular width to the cats in Christiansen and Harris (2005), it's again like that of lions and tigers. I may have missed something in the descriptive paper but if so I cannot find it.

So in simple terms, we could probably have a decent estimate by taking the articular length of the humerus (438 mm) and using isometry against lions and tigers, the lower of which (based on the longer leg to spine length lion) is 350 kg and upper of which (based on the longer spine to leg length tiger) is 450 kg. The reason why the estimate differ is due to the spine proportions. Lions are lighter for their leg length because they have a shorter spine per unit leg length and also have a longer cervical and thoracic region (thus shorter lumbar region). The lumbar region is the most dense given the musculature and guts), while the thoracic region has more airspace (less density), and the cervical region has much less weight per unit length as compared to the other regions because the neck is much narrower than the chest/abdomen. Therefore, the tiger is not only longer per unit leg length but also is composed of more of the lumbar region, giving it a higher weight per unit leg length.

The thing about Machairodus is that a very large proportion of its spine is dedicated to the neck and and based on New World Machairodus the lumbar region is even shorter than that in the lion. This would mean Machairodus would at best have a weight to leg length ratio like that of the lion, but likely less in reality. As such, this new giant is probably 350 kg or a bit less. This is comparable to most of the ancient giants but probably is just a bit lighter than S. populator, some ancient lions, and the Late Pleistocene tiger. In terms of frame however, this specimen may be the largest we know of from the cat family.
5 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Acinonyx sp. Offline
Regular Member
***

@tigerluver 

Is the weight chart you made in 2014 still accurate?I am referring to the weight chart where you put ngandong tiger specimen at 434 kg and a smilodon populator specimen at 435 kg.
1 user Likes Acinonyx sp.'s post
Reply

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

(05-22-2021, 01:03 AM)Acinonyx sp. Wrote: @tigerluver 

Is the weight chart you made in 2014 still accurate?I am referring to the weight chart where you put ngandong tiger specimen at 434 kg and a smilodon populator specimen at 435 kg.


Probably not completely. There's a bigger skull now of S. populator and also the methods I used then aren't as precise as the ones I use now.
3 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Acinonyx sp. Offline
Regular Member
***

@tigerluver  
Thanks for answering.What would you consider a good average weight for the ngandong tiger?I have seen figures of 314kg using Chritiansen and Harris's methods.
1 user Likes Acinonyx sp.'s post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 05-23-2021, 09:37 AM by tigerluver )

(05-23-2021, 06:13 AM)Acinonyx sp. Wrote: @tigerluver  
Thanks for answering.What would you consider a good average weight for the ngandong tiger?I have seen figures of 314kg using Chritiansen and Harris's methods.


Yes that one from the femur length equation. 

The C&H(2005) equations are good but not great. They underestimate the tigers in their own database and pretty heavily underestimate a 236 kg wild specimen (AMNH113744) mentioned in Sorkin (2006). The reasoning is that the equation is estimating interspecific allometry and so shouldn't be used over isometry in species we are confident regarding proportions. 

The isometric estimate range considering only length (there are indications pointing to the femur being more robust but I'm disregarding this for now) combining the Christiansen and Harris (2005) data with the wild male is 308-418 kg (average of this n=6 is 353 kg). The 418 kg estimate actually comes from the single wild male (which should be considered given the differences in built between captive and wild animals).

The humeri are probably in the 200-300 kg range. Considering modern male tigers are about 50%-70% heavier than females, it could be reasonable to infer the humeri are of females based on how much smaller they are than the 480 mm femur.

The database of Pleistocene Sunda tigers is too small to have a good idea of a mean but we can infer probability to say that the specimens found were average for the time.
2 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****
( This post was last modified: 05-25-2021, 04:52 AM by Balam )






*This image is copyright of its original author
5 users Like Balam's post
Reply

Acinonyx sp. Offline
Regular Member
***

@tigerluver 
Shouldn't isometric scaling involving shaft width be much more accurate than isometric scaling involving only length since it should include all the meat that could be packed in the arm?
1 user Likes Acinonyx sp.'s post
Reply

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

(05-29-2021, 07:03 AM)Acinonyx sp. Wrote: @tigerluver 
Shouldn't isometric scaling involving shaft width be much more accurate than isometric scaling involving only length since it should include all the meat that could be packed in the arm?


Isometric scaling means all dimensions grow equally, so a single type of measurement cannot be superior to another under this assumption. One would also have to decide which axis of shaft width to use as those differ between species/individuals.

Here's an example of why isometric scaling with midshaft widths isn't necessarily more accurate. You have an animal of bone length 100, midshaft width 50 in AP and 50 in LM directions. You have another animal with bone length 300, with midshaft with 30 in AP and 30 in LM. By midshaft width, isometry would say the former is larger by a lot (has more volume). However, let's calculate the volumes:

Animal (former): 100 x 50 x 50 = 250,000
Animal (latter): 300 x 30 x 30 = 320,000

Length has quite a significant effect on mass/volume, as would width dimensions. This is simply because length is a dimension in 3D of its own. As such, one cannot be superior over the other considering isometric estimations.

Modeling with multiple measurements is a different story as we don't assume isometry in its most literal sense (given we are averaging the measurements). In the end, long bone width dimensions have much less effect than measurements of the torso as the majority of the mass is in the torso. This is why GDI and other volumetric estimations that are used for dinosaurs are much better. For instance, if we see the humerus to ulna ratio of Smilodon (indicates of percent body height that is composed of torso), we would see it has much torso for its height, giving it a much higher weight for its long bone measurements (especially length). This is of course supported by its long bone widths. However, its long bones width (especially hindleg) are probably deflated per body as compared to extant large pantherines, an observation that cannot be detected from only long bone measurements.
3 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Italy LoveAnimals Offline
Member
**

@tigerluver

I've read a study that estimated the body mass of two speciments of Ngandong Tuger and Smilodon Populator, the result was 486 kg and 517 kg for the largest speciments of the species.

Even though it's only an estimate, are these two cats truly esrimated to be that heavy on max size? That puts them on the same level of today's bears (also average polar bear) except for max sizes since kodiaks and polars can exceed 700 kg
1 user Likes LoveAnimals's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
2 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