Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines

[acutidens150]

(03-28-2022, 08:41 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(03-27-2022, 12:08 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:

Quote:. So, I think that a body mass of about 450 kg

While I really hope of a such high estimate, I doubt it was actually that heavy. Now estomating without a dorsal view is useless, but I've been doing a comparison between this cat and the GDIed 434 kg smilodon

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Maybe it's just me, but I guess that the new version seems a bit wankier than the previous one, I guess it looks more like 400 kgish.
But again, visual estimates are useless until we don't see a dorsal view

In order to avoid confusions and missunderstandings in the future, I suggest you to quote the entire phrase and not only a part of it. I did not stated that I think that this particular new specimen weighed 450 kg, I said (and I quote myself) that: "I think that a body mass of about 450 kg seems not out of question, surpassing any modern or prehistoric Panthera member!" That is a different statement, and is only suggesting that estimations of up to that figure could be plausible.

Now, returing to the point, a GDE estimation, like Tigerluver explained before, is problematic and arbitrary en many senses, as we need a tridimentional point of view of the animal and honestly the upper view of the specimen used in that calculation that you quoted it looks more like a large modern tiger-lion than a Smilodon. The Smilodon species, especifically fatalis and populator, were massive and wide in its body, check that even for the biggest S. fatalis which measured about 180 cm in body length and 100 cm in height (average for a modern lion), already weighed up to 280 kg (more than the biggest modern tiger), so they were very stocky and that image reflect it but just partially.

Also, as far I remember randomdinos once explained that the black silouete in his images represents the basic musculature, not a maximum or minimum. So that same specimen with a little of more musculature and fat will definitelly weight more.

Finaly, we need to remember that all the body masses of prehistoric animals are estimations based in formulas which results may vary depening of the methods and sources of its data, so we need to be careful and not take it like the last true. However based in its size and massivenes we can say that Smilodon populator did surpassed the 400 kg and certainly is one, of not, the heaviest felid of all times (for the moment....).

What size would you estimate for the giant lower jaw specimen of the Ngandong tiger? As in height, body length and mass. 
Thank you. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-03-2022, 02:28 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: What size would you estimate for the giant lower jaw specimen of the Ngandong tiger? As in height, body length and mass. 
Thank you.

The size of the mandible is about 270 mm reconstructed, so the skull length that I calculated for that animal was of about 400 mm. These values are about the same as the biggest tiger skull ever reported with a GSL of 406.4 mm and a mandible of 276.2 mm (Mazák, 2013), but bigger than the biggest tiger skull measured by scientists with GSL of 383 mm and a mandible of 260 mm (Mazák, 1981).

With this information at hand, we can estimate that this mandible belonged to an specimen of the same size as the biggest Amur-Bengal tiger specimens recorded, which means a head-body slightly over 220 cm, a shoulder height of about 110 cm and a weight up to 300 kg, just like the biggest Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) reported at this moment in scientific litterature. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(04-04-2022, 09:58 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-03-2022, 02:28 PM)acutidens150 Wrote: What size would you estimate for the giant lower jaw specimen of the Ngandong tiger? As in height, body length and mass. 
Thank you.

The size of the mandible is about 270 mm reconstructed, so the skull length that I calculated for that animal was of about 400 mm. These values are about the same as the biggest tiger skull ever reported with a GSL of 406.4 mm and a mandible of 276.2 mm (Mazák, 2013), but bigger than the biggest tiger skull measured by scientists with GSL of 383 mm and a mandible of 260 mm (Mazák, 1981).

With this information at hand, we can estimate that this mandible belonged to an specimen of the same size as the biggest Amur-Bengal tiger specimens recorded, which means a head-body slightly over 220 cm, a shoulder height of about 110 cm and a weight up to 300 kg, just like the biggest Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) reported at this moment in scientific litterature.

I think he was referring about the giant broken mandible from @tigerluver. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-05-2022, 03:47 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: I think he was referring about the giant broken mandible from @tigerluver.

Ohhh, in that case I don't have an estimation of size from the Pleistocene giant Borneo tiger, Tigerluver is the only one that can give a reliable estimation of that specimen. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(01-16-2022, 10:07 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Mandible length of fragment is affected by allometry. The "mandible length" measurement in the tiger paper is not the same as complete mandible length. Rather, you will see that as the mandible size increased, the surrogate "mandible length" comprises proportionately less and less of the total mandible. In other words, positive allometry. Here is a visual:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
The larger specimens have a shorter horizontal ramus and surrogate mandible length compared to total mandible length. You will see here that comparison of the surrogate "mandible length" between 1a and 3a will underestimate 3a by a massive 17% (65/76). Therefore, the clean isometric relation of total mandible length does not apply. This is why height and width dimensions of the ramus are important, as there is less allometric effect on estimation theoretically when we pool together many measurements. This is also probably why multiple measurements are used in the estimate, to make up for this error. It is important to know these allometric relationships before choosing a single measurement as "most accurate" as clearly, the surrogate mandible length has hefty underestimation.

The comparative specimen used to estimate via mandible length is very small. As such, using a scale factor of 3 would underestimate the mass as the actual scale factor is greater than 3.

It may happen in time that the Christiansen estimations show to be underestimates across the board. The database is measured from digital photos, which can result in measurements a bit exaggerated as compared to in person measurements. This underestimates any specimen not also measured digitally.

Just for fun, nothing official, I tried to make an estimation of size for the Borneo Pleistocene giant tiger, using the fragment of the mandible in the document of Sherani (2019). I found that when I used the mandible of the Ngandong tiger NM2671 it matched were well so I tried to use it as a surrogate. However what I corroborated (as Tigerluver already explained it, and I quote his post here) is that the recostruction is very subjective and depends of the mandible and the skull that you use (mainland or sunda, male or female, adult or young, etc.). Just to give you an idea, the reconstructions that I made give me a range of skull length between 450 - 500 mm+, which implies a head-body of 240 - 270 cm. I am impresed about how variable can be a reconstruction in this form, specially when the fossil is so fragmentary. I remember that Tigerluver told me that the skull of this tiger could be about 480 mm in GL and a head-body of about 260 cm, so my results were not too far from his calculations.

It will be interesting if some one in the future could make a comparison of this mandible with other modern tigers, using real measurements from the bones and not just images in Photoshop (like I have done in this moment) in order to provide a more reliable calculation for the size of this giant tiger. For the moment, I stay with the estimation of Tigerluver. Reply

[jrocks]

hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks Reply

[GuateGojira]

(06-09-2022, 10:15 AM)jrocks Wrote: hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks

I know that the question is not for me, but if this helps, here are the lists of Panthera atrox and Panthera spelaea skulls that include the biggest specimens recorded at this moment:

First, Panthera atrox from Merriam & Stock (1932):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now, Panthera spelaea from Marciszak et al. (2013):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see, only one skull is over 475 mm and its length is in doubth as it is badly crushed, and even the one estimated at 475 mm is just that, an estimation as probably is broken at the end. If that person claim that are bigger skulls, he/she MUST present hard evidence, if not, you can discard his/her words. Reply

[jrocks]

(06-10-2022, 04:02 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(06-09-2022, 10:15 AM)jrocks Wrote: hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks

I know that the question is not for me, but if this helps, here are the lists of Panthera atrox and Panthera spelaea skulls that include the biggest specimens recorded at this moment:

First, Panthera atrox from Merriam & Stock (1932):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now, Panthera spelaea from Marciszak et al. (2013):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see, only one skull is over 475 mm and its length is in doubth as it is badly crushed, and even the one estimated at 475 mm is just that, an estimation as probably is broken at the end. If that person claim that are bigger skulls, he/she MUST present hard evidence, if not, you can discard his/her words.

oh thanks Reply

[GuateGojira]

(06-09-2022, 10:15 AM)jrocks Wrote: hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks

I was reading the posts of that person in Carnivora, specifically those from that topic and he never mentioned anything of "6 or 7 specimens", in fact, his previous post only copy-paste some information provided by Waveriders in 2012 and although Waveriders mentions that "bigger" specimens may exist, he based his statement in limb bones, not skulls. At the end, I don't see anything suggesting that are 6-7 bigger skulls out there and this person 2ZB is the one that mentions this.

Certainly the use of an old post with no update in the information (2012), from a cryptic/unreliable poster (Waveriders) and an incorrect interpretation (2ZB) cause confusion, from my point of view. Reply

[jrocks]

(06-10-2022, 05:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(06-09-2022, 10:15 AM)jrocks Wrote: hi @tigerluver,

I saw in the carnivora forum american lion vs grizzly bear that a user onlyfaizy786 claimed that there were 6 or 7 specimens that are larger than the 475 mm makhnevskaya cave lion skull, is that true or are they only claims, also what was waveriders saying about about the 192 mm mt3 specimen having a skull length of around 525 mm is that accurate, ive never seen these specimens said to be larger than the 475 mm skull being mentioned until now

jrocks

I was reading the posts of that person in Carnivora, specifically those from that topic and he never mentioned anything of "6 or 7 specimens", in fact, his previous post only copy-paste some information provided by Waveriders in 2012 and although Waveriders mentions that "bigger" specimens may exist, he based his statement in limb bones, not skulls. At the end, I don't see anything suggesting that are 6-7 bigger skulls out there and this person 2ZB is the one that mentions this.

Certainly the use of an old post with no update in the information (2012), from a cryptic/unreliable poster (Waveriders) and an incorrect interpretation (2ZB) cause confusion, from my point of view.

oh, i read 6 or 7 (and possibly more) distinct individuals which were said to be larger on page 4 of that thread although yes 2ZB also mentions it
also, are those statements waveriders made on the specimens of those limb bones being larger than the 475 mm skull specimen true or no Reply

[GuateGojira]

(06-10-2022, 07:03 AM)jrocks Wrote: oh, i read 6 or 7 (and possibly more) distinct individuals which were said to be larger on page 4 of that thread although yes 2ZB also mentions it
also, are those statements waveriders made on the specimens of those limb bones being larger than the 475 mm skull specimen true or no

The problem is that we need to know the proportions of the species. The bones that Waveriders mentions, if I remember correctly, are metapodials and an ulna, and we know that Steppe (cave) "lions" had longer limbs in relation with its body. So, it will be good to check it the measurements are correct and latter to make correlations of its dimentions. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

A modern captive tiger skull that greatly resembles the Pleistocene tiger skull from the ventral view.

Except the Pleistocene tiger skull got even more broadened snout/muzzle with more reinforced canine teeth structure.

http://skullbase.info/skulls/mammals/tiger.php

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[caninecat]

hello @GuateGojira, stumbled upon a 2019 article about the 2019 Borenean tiger. You yourself think this article is amazing that he was given a weight of 478 kg, with a mandible measurement of 206 cm, although with such a structure of the mandible, his GSL should be only 312 cm. I do not imagine that a tiger with a long skull of 312 cm would weigh 478 kg. I would like to ask you - is such a large weight estimate correct, or is the Mosbach lion still larger than this tiger? Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(10-30-2022, 03:08 PM)caninecat Wrote: hello @GuateGojira, stumbled upon a 2019 article about the 2019 Borenean tiger. You yourself think this article is amazing that he was given a weight of 478 kg, with a mandible measurement of 206 cm, although with such a structure of the mandible, his GSL should be only 312 cm. I do not imagine that a tiger with a long skull of 312 cm would weigh 478 kg. I would like to ask you - is such a large weight estimate correct, or is the Mosbach lion still larger than this tiger?

206 cm is the measurement of the fragment as the mandible was broken, and we can never know the full length but with estimation.

Based on the comparison with the modern close relatives of the giant Bornean tiger, the mandible should measure around 320 cm in its complete form, and the GSL is also estimated to be approximately 480 cm or 460 cm according Per Christiansen with more conservative formula.

The skull of the giant Bornean tiger is either similar to the largest Panthera spelaea or the largest Panthera fossilis depending on the formula to choose to guesstimate its size. Reply

[caninecat]

Привет, @GuateGojira. I would like to ask what is the maximum length of the skull of atrox Reply