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.
11-22-2018, 09:33 AM( This post was last modified: 11-22-2018, 09:34 AM by johnny rex )
(11-21-2018, 09:16 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.
Oh and how about the big mandible of P. tigris acutidens that was posted somewhere in this forum before? Is it the same size as Padang's specimen?
(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.
Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?
Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?
I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.
Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?
BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.
That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.
The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.
I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.
However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.
Tiger's face looks like a Felidae because of the short and round character, perhaps they were rising lately and without developing specially I think, and they may never expand the range out of Asia like Lion.
Tiger and Snow Leopard are Asiatic native Panthea species and without any population which out of Asia, however, Snow Leopard's
descent has owned some African Panthera species's characters, therefore, Tiger is the most pure Asiatic native Panthera species，compared with Lion-Leopard-Jaguar, they are more conservative.
Maybe tiger was derived from the direct lineage of the proto pantherine that first appeared in Asia.
Those African pantherines had coped a lot to adapt in an open environment when their ancestor migrated to Africa.
As we had discussed in Baidu, when Cave lion has brought back to life and coexist with Amur tiger in North America nowadays, Cave lion would dominate the North-Western Canada while the Amur tiger would dominate the North-Eastern Canada, when these two top predators meet, they may not easily break out the conflict expect the hunger, however, when American lion and Amur tiger coexist each-other, American lion would try to invade Amur tiger although it's not for hunger, why? because American lion may more aggressive and the size is bigger.
Cave lion would cover from Alaska to the whole mid-western Canada, Amur tiger would cover the Northern USA and nearly half of the Canada, while the American lion could cover the USA in west and mid-west, they could also reach to the USA-Mexico border like Texas and Arizona.
Maneless lions and tiger would be the top predators, while jaguar and cougar are the second top predators when these big cats coexist nowadays in North-America
(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.
Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?
Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?
I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.
Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?
BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.
That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.
The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.
I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.
However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.
I have actually noticed that the tiger has the least robust mandible in terms of height. Here's a comparison with the mandibles scaled to about the same length:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Anteriorly and posteriorly, the tiger has the shortest mandible. Posteriorly, the lion has the tallest mandible. The American lion consistently has a tall mandible for its length throughout.
But wasn't the Padang mandible proportionally robust compared to that of Panthera atrox?
BTW, maybe the robusticity can be varied over time.
Well I don't think Padang tiger could as robust like Panthera atrox, even the total length of skull may couldn't up to 480MM, it just the level of modern Panthera species maximum length.
Could you tell me how body-size you have calculated @tigerluver ? in my opinion, the prehistoric tiger's body-size may be greatly exaggerated
@Smilodon-Rex , the basis for the Padang calculations are just a few posts above and all the way back to around page 54. There is nothing more to add at the moment. Specifics cannot be given for a few months but everything that has been provided is based on data that has been made available in this thread. You can see the measurements for yourself from the photos. As always, any more data you have to share will be greatly appreciated.
@johnny rex , it’s been a long time since I saw that piece. I remember we had some doubts on its species too later. @GrizzlyClaws
(11-22-2018, 09:21 PM)tigerluver Wrote: @Smilodon-Rex , the basis for the Padang calculations are just a few posts above and all the way back to around page 54. There is nothing more to add at the moment. Specifics cannot be given for a few months but everything that has been provided is based on data that has been made available in this thread. You can see the measurements for yourself from the photos. As always, any more data you have to share will be greatly appreciated.
@johnny rex , it’s been a long time since I saw that piece. I remember we had some doubts on its species too later. @GrizzlyClaws
could be able to offer some clarifications.
Why? The lower jaw does not actually belong to a tiger?
(11-21-2018, 09:16 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.
(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.
Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?
Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?
I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.
Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?
BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.
That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.
The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.
I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.
However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.
I have actually noticed that the tiger has the least robust mandible in terms of height. Here's a comparison with the mandibles scaled to about the same length:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Anteriorly and posteriorly, the tiger has the shortest mandible. Posteriorly, the lion has the tallest mandible. The American lion consistently has a tall mandible for its length throughout.
But wasn't the Padang mandible proportionally robust compared to that of Panthera atrox?
BTW, maybe the robusticity can be varied over time.
Well I don't think Padang tiger could as robust like Panthera atrox, even the total length of skull may couldn't up to 480MM, it just the level of modern Panthera species maximum length.
Could you tell me how body-size you have calculated @tigerluver ? in my opinion, the prehistoric tiger's body-size may be greatly exaggerated
Padang tiger in comparison with the specimen 2900-3.
(11-22-2018, 09:21 PM)tigerluver Wrote: @Smilodon-Rex , the basis for the Padang calculations are just a few posts above and all the way back to around page 54. There is nothing more to add at the moment. Specifics cannot be given for a few months but everything that has been provided is based on data that has been made available in this thread. You can see the measurements for yourself from the photos. As always, any more data you have to share will be greatly appreciated.
@johnny rex , it’s been a long time since I saw that piece. I remember we had some doubts on its species too later. @GrizzlyClaws
could be able to offer some clarifications.
Why? The lower jaw does not actually belong to a tiger?
Maybe it could belong to a super massive Cave lion.
Morphologically, it did coherently match with other Cave lion specimens. The owner of the fossil told me that he also believed it was likely a Cave lion.
(11-21-2018, 09:16 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.
11-23-2018, 04:41 AM( This post was last modified: 03-03-2019, 05:20 AM by GrizzlyClaws )
(11-23-2018, 04:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-23-2018, 01:17 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-22-2018, 09:21 AM)johnny rex Wrote:
(11-21-2018, 09:16 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.
(11-23-2018, 04:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote: The photos unfortunately do not show anymore, but maybe @GuateGojira could repost them if he has them saved somewhere.
Sadly my computer was damaged and I lost all the information from the last 5 years!
Probably I still have some pictures from my very old database in CD/DVD formats but I need to search it and for the moment I am still recontructing my database from modern animals.
(11-23-2018, 04:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote: The photos unfortunately do not show anymore, but maybe @GuateGojira could repost them if he has them saved somewhere.
Sadly my computer was damaged and I lost all the information from the last 5 years!
Probably I still have some pictures from my very old database in CD/DVD formats but I need to search it and for the moment I am still recontructing my database from modern animals.
(11-25-2018, 10:10 AM)paul cooper Wrote: How was your computer damaged? Im just curious..
I have no idea. At the begining it started slowly and Windows did not charged correctly. I was necesary to reset it, sometimes over 3 attempts before it worked correctly.
Some day the Windows program never started, so I took it to a technitian and he told me that the problem was with the hard disk itself. I took it to other 3 technitian, even one from my wife's work and all of them told me the same, the problem is directly with the hard-drive and is not posible to save the information trough normal ways.
The recovering of the information may cost between Q.1,500 to Q.3,000 ($200 to $400), and amount that I can't spend right now. So the hard-drive is storage now, and maybe in the future I will be able to recover the information/pictures/photograps/videos...etc... that I have there.
(11-19-2018, 06:49 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: In that chart, the skull length is about 1.5 times longer than the lower jaw length.
Is this a little bit too long for the CBL?
Did P. Christiansen (2008) really state this is the CBL, not GSL?
I noticed that too. Something is odd about the way the mandibles were measured for the CBL to relate by 1.5x. The paper is attached. He only refers to CBL everywhere.
Maybe the measurement came from the bottom of the lower jaw instead of the entire mandible?
BTW, the Padang specimen might have proportionally smaller canine teeth the modern tigers, hence the difference of proportion needs to be coped.
That method of measurement would make sense and could explain why in this study the lion has a much longer mandible proportionately than the tiger. If the mandible was measured from the angular process to the symphysis and the coronoid process was not measured, the tiger would appear to have a proportionately shorter mandible as tigers generally have a coronoid process that extends beyond the inferior processes.
The smaller the canine teeth proportionately, the longer the skull. That would make the skull fall off the scale in terms of size. The opposite is also a possibility.
I do recall that you gave the conclusion that the Padang mandible is overall more robust than the mandible of the specimen 2900-3 of Panthera atrox.
However, the lion-like felines always got longer coronoid process in count. Therefore, at the similar length, the tiger-like felines would usually get more robust mandible.
I have actually noticed that the tiger has the least robust mandible in terms of height. Here's a comparison with the mandibles scaled to about the same length:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Anteriorly and posteriorly, the tiger has the shortest mandible. Posteriorly, the lion has the tallest mandible. The American lion consistently has a tall mandible for its length throughout.
But wasn't the Padang mandible proportionally robust compared to that of Panthera atrox?
BTW, maybe the robusticity can be varied over time.
Well I don't think Padang tiger could as robust like Panthera atrox, even the total length of skull may couldn't up to 480MM, it just the level of modern Panthera species maximum length.
Could you tell me how body-size you have calculated @tigerluver ? in my opinion, the prehistoric tiger's body-size may be greatly exaggerated
Padang tiger in comparison with the specimen 2900-3.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Thanks to your share, but it just shows that the Padong tiger's maximum size could as large as 2900-3, the biggest Panthera atrox still larger than Padong tiger
The prehistorical tiger's maximum weight should up to 350kg range even more, however, it may just up to 400kg no more
*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
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
According to the size comparison between modern tiger and human being, 100cm shoulder height is a really big size as for tiger, well if you want to ask me how tall the prehistoric tiger's maximum shoulder height, my answer is 120cm to 125cm
(11-21-2018, 09:16 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
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
