Ngandong Tiger (Panthera Tigris soloensis)

[GuateGojira]

(02-02-2022, 01:51 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Maybe the largest specimen for the Ngandong tiger got a 18 inches skull, and 19 inches for the giant Bornean tiger.

Maybe the Ngandong tiger got proportionally smaller skull compared to the giant Bornean tiger, but it cannot have a skull size of a modern tiger.

Honestly we still can't know which could be the largest skull from this subspecies/populations, specially by the fact that we have so few fossils.

For the giant mandible from Borneo definitelly it had a huge skull, bigger than any recorded or estimated for the Ngandong tiger. Now for this last one, only the specimen from the mandible (Watualang) and the Femur (Ngandong) probably had a bigger skull than the one that we already have. Now, how big? That is the question, and for the mandible remember that we estimated an skull GL of c.393 mm using real measurement and a strong correlation formula (Check here, post 1,187).

Now, for the femur, we have only three tigers with both, skull and femur, to get a value (c.445 mm in GLS), but the relation is very poor (r=34), so is very unlikely that we can get an accurate reconstruction using only these specimens. Now, I was using real tiger skeltons and measure them in Photoshop to get an idea of what could be the skull of a tiger with a femur of 480 mm. The only problem is that only two skeletons are known hy its sex and age, while the others are unknown, so also the resulting value will be only suggestive and not 100% reliable. Reply

[Charger01]

Dr. Per Christiansen estimated the GSL for the Borneo Tiger Mandible to be in the 460 mm range. Reply

[GuateGojira]

Short note - On the size of NM2641:

I made a quick review about how I calculated the body size of the specimen of Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) classified as NM2641, popularly known as "the giant tiger femur".

Using the only database available in litterature, the result is this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is the result that I used in my previous size estimation, a head-body of c.230 cm. However, in the next image I used real tiger skeletons in order to calculate the size of the tiger if the femur measure 480 mm. These are the results:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see, there are several specimens but I only know the sex and age of two of them, so probably there are mixed ages, sex and subspecies on it. This means that the result is only suggestive. However, the resulting figure is of c.240 cm in head-body straight line, which is bigger than my previouis estimation. However, if we use the mode with is about 216 cm, the result will be c.235 cm straight, which is close to the value that I got previously. So this give you an idea about the size estimation for this giant specimen, even the smaller value (from the female tiger - 225 cm HBL straight) is already larger than most modern records from Bengal and Amur tigers, and the biggest value (young male - 254 cm HBL straight) is a record itself.

Now, about the shoulder height, if I use the skeletons I got a mean of 122 cm (range: 118 - 129; n=8) but we need to take in count that the posture of the skeleton and the reconstruction make very difficult to get an accurate value. In this case, I decided to play safe and as we know that shoulder height in tigers is about 1/2 of head-body straight, I estimate a shoulder height of c.120 cm using the value from the skeletons, which seems correct based in all the calculations. About the tail, we know that normally tigers had a tail of 1/2 of head-body, so it will be also about 120 cm, no big deal here.

So, with this data, we can say that the tiger where the femur came had a calculated had-body length of 240 cm "straight", a standing shoulder height of 120 cm and tail of the same size giving a total length straight of 360 cm. This means that I will need to update my datasheet about this subspecies.

On the weight section, calculations are between 363 kg (my calculation) to 380 kg (Dr Per Christiansen, not yet published), and also over 400 kg, depending of the source.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Greetings to all! Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(02-02-2022, 10:49 PM)Khan85 Wrote: Dr. Per Christiansen estimated the GSL for the Borneo Tiger Mandible to be in the 460 mm range.

They were probably estimating with the most conservative method.

Nevertheless, the sample of the Pleistocene tigers was extremely scarce, and if the sample size could match that of the Pleistocene lions, and the size difference would be probably similar to that of the modern lions/tigers. Reply

[AndresVida]

(02-03-2022, 04:53 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Nevertheless, the sample of the Pleistocene tigers was extremely scarce, and if the sample size could match that of the Pleistocene lions, and the size difference would be probably similar to that of the modern lions/tigers.Reply

I guess we only have 7 specimens that can be attributed to this giant pleistocene tiger. 
What's impressive is how small the sample is. I mean the sample size is very small but we already have specimen estimates that can be 400+ kg. Just the frequency of this makes me wonder how big the largest specimen ever could be. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(02-06-2022, 02:52 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:

(02-03-2022, 04:53 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Nevertheless, the sample of the Pleistocene tigers was extremely scarce, and if the sample size could match that of the Pleistocene lions, and the size difference would be probably similar to that of the modern lions/tigers.Reply

I guess we only have 7 specimens that can be attributed to this giant pleistocene tiger. 
What's impressive is how small the sample is. I mean the sample size is very small but we already have specimen estimates that can be 400+ kg. Just the frequency of this makes me wonder how big the largest specimen ever could be.

They have already reached the highest ceiling for the Felidae family based on few small samples.

So those small samples can be quite representative for the rest of the population. Reply

[AndresVida]

(02-06-2022, 04:21 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: They have already reached the highest ceiling for the Felidae family based on few small samples.

Exactly, very impressive cats. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(02-06-2022, 02:52 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: I guess we only have 7 specimens that can be attributed to this giant pleistocene tiger. 
What's impressive is how small the sample is. I mean the sample size is very small but we already have specimen estimates that can be 400+ kg. Just the frequency of this makes me wonder how big the largest specimen ever could be.

Fully agree with this. I mean, what is the possibility that a dwarf or a giant can be fossilize? Taking in mind this, we can guess that normally the average sized specimens are more regular in the fossil record and only with very big samples (like the ones of Panthera atrox, Panthera spelaea, and T. rex, for example) we can actually know the extreme sizes. Under this idea, we can guess that the 10 known specimens of the Ngandong tiger are around the average size and that maybe bigger specimens could exist that we still don't found. The Borneo tiger of the Pleistocene is a good example and I can guess that specimens of its same size could live also in Java.

I may add a creppy thing here that maybe not anyone remember. The fossils in the Ngandong site are believe that are the rest of animals killed by early hominids, some of theme are other hominids too. It was like an old graveyard of killings!


I could say that the Ngandong tiger is like the Spinosaurus, very few specimens and until some one actually go to Java and began to search more information and make it famous (like NatGeo done it), it will continue to be an enigma. Reply

[AndresVida]

What are the latest estimates for the giant bornean tiger mandible?

I heard that @tigerluver 's calculations for the GSL indicate a massive size of the skull

CBL fossil = CH fossil/CH extant CBL extant = 67 mm/44.50 mm * 291.9 mm = 440 mm

Greatest skull length (GSL) is generally 1.11x CBL at minimum, for a GSL of ~488 mm.

Now, I imagine that a tiger with a nearly 490 mm skull would weigh well over 400 kgs Reply

[Artos]

Is it true that this tiger subspecies was more gracile with thiner bones than an American lion? Reply

[GuateGojira]

(03-23-2023, 10:55 AM)Artos Wrote: Is it true that this tiger subspecies was more gracile with thiner bones than an American lion?

There is no evidence of that, after all, the sample of Ngandong tigers is too small to get a conclution, while that of the American "lion" is much bigger and better studied. Reply