|
Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws
|
 (07-28-2021, 11:40 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(07-24-2021, 05:54 AM)epaiva Wrote:(07-24-2021, 05:07 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:Thanks a lot for your valuable information @“grizzlyclaws”(07-24-2021, 01:09 AM)epaiva Wrote:(07-24-2021, 12:17 AM)JGrizzlyClaws Wrote:(07-23-2021, 08:12 PM)epaiva Wrote:(06-19-2021, 02:34 AM)epaiva Wrote: American Lion (Panthera atrox) @“grizzlyclaws” Thanks a lot for your valuable information 
@GrizzlyClaws :
About #1950: you told: " The late Pleistocene Chinese tigers and the prime Manchurian tigers were like the T-Rex of the pantherine world. Always proportionally the widest muzzle/most vaulted skull that enabling to produce the largest canine teeth among the pantherines. Coincidentally, they were also the largest dominant group among the giant pantherines like the T-Rex did among the theropods. " Not agree... Without the human action, from the Siberia till more southern parts of the Asiatic continents, the tiger had perhaps to share their "housing environment " with some extinct Eurasian cave lion's one... Perhaps with the panthera Atrox in Alaska too... There are too much unknown datas which can allow to pretend that the Pleistocene tigers were unrivaled. OK extinct tigers were undoubtely the greatest panterines, but not by a big margin. If these extinct lions lived in groups, tigers had to deal with them. And the psychological characteristic don't become ossified.  (07-29-2021, 12:34 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws : I doubt it would matter, since like today the prehistoric landscape would have many different terrains and the Tiger would surely take to areas where they wouldn't have to deal with a group of similarly sized cats.
@Pckts :
About #1952: " I doubt it would matter, since like today the prehistoric landscape would have many different terrains and the Tiger would surely take to areas where they wouldn't have to deal with a group of similarly sized cats. " Yes, absolutely agree ! But in this case like nowadays, extinct tigers and lions were both apex predators (both apex pantherine predators), each of them living and unrivaled in some distinct areas.  (07-29-2021, 12:34 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws : I made a typo, I wanted to say that "they were the last dominant group of giant pantherines just like the T-Rex was the last dominant theropod". The Pleistocene lions and Ngandong tigers were some other heavy calibers that predated them. The late Pleistocene Chinese tigers and the prime Manchrian tigers were also analogical to the T-Rex in many aspects; largest teeth and proportionally widest skull, also being a latecomer. (07-29-2021, 02:00 AM)Spalea Wrote: @Pckts : The Pleistocene lions were more analogical to those Carcharodontosauridae members; at least as large as the largest T-Rex, being a frontrunner than a latecomer, also more widely dispersed than its opponents.
@GrizzlyClaws
OK, no problem... More wider snouts, more longer teeths and claws, tigers were always the most perfect big pantherines, individually speaking. Lions could have other assets. (07-29-2021, 06:00 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws Indeed, but the ancient lions had more diversification. The Cave lion was a tiger-like lion also with proportionally broad snout, and some eastern populations seemed to have develop the canine teeth almost as long as tiger's. The American lion was the most athletic built among all pantherines. The Cromerian lion was extremely tall with very long jaw. The Pleistocene African lions were just as large as those aforementioned lion species. Don't you think that the lion also has its special charm?
@GrizzlyClaws :
" Indeed, but the ancient lions had more diversification. The Cave lion was a tiger-like lion also with proportionally broad snout, and some eastern populations seemed to have develop the canine teeth almost as long as tiger's. The American lion was the most athletic built among all pantherines. The Cromerian lion was extremely tall with very long jaw. The Pleistocene African lions were just as large as those aforementioned lion species. Don't you think that the lion also has its special charm? " Perhaps the ancient lions had more diversification because they were more widespread. Why ? Perhaps because of their social life in pride. But how can we be sure about it ? Yes, we have clues, we can have some presumptions. Somebody painted them as "generalists" among felids while the tigers were "specialists". I wouldn't dare to affirm that the american lion was the most athletic-built panterine. Perhaps it was confronted with the hardest concurrence if it should have coexisted with the short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat (smilodon fatalis ? Smilodon populator ?), the dire wolf (if this biggest wolf of all time lived in large prides). The fact is: we have tendency to reproduce some extant actual animal's characteristics to its ancestors. Thus, did the lions live all in pride ? Were the tigers always solitary felids ? Probably, we can seriously believe it, but we aren't 100% sure of that. But, in order to get some answers we are scrutinizing the extant animals' behaviour, but these ones have to suffer the most powerful human action we can imagine... And it is worse and worse with time. So datas are biased. Of course lions has "its special charm" as you told (I used the word "asset"). Otherwise it would have disappeared. But each animal specy has its special charm. The lions among big felids spreaded almost everywhere: North America, Eurasia, Africa... They would have been a long-time victorious specy before the human being achievement. (07-29-2021, 01:08 PM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws : The Panthera spelaea group did precede the domination of the late Pleistocene tigers, but their extinction was a natural occurrence. The late Pleistocene/early Holocene tigers on the other hand got disrupted by the rise of the human influence, and this forced them to abdicate their giant pantherine status. Without the rise of the Homo sapiens, maybe both Panthera tigris and Panthera leo would still remain giant in their respective domain.
@GrizzlyClaws :
You told : " The Panthera spelaea group did precede the domination of the late Pleistocene tigers, but their extinction was a natural occurrence. The late Pleistocene/early Holocene tigers on the other hand got disrupted by the rise of the human influence, and this forced them to abdicate their giant pantherine status. Without the rise of the Homo sapiens, maybe both Panthera tigris and Panthera leo would still remain giant in their respective domain. " If I can sum up what you say: extinct lions disappeared at first through a natural occurence ? Yes as concerns the Cromerian lion, the African pleistocene lions in Africa and probably too the pantera atrox, the american lion. But as concerns the Cave lion in Eurasia, its reign was also disrupted by the human influence as the tiger's late Pleistocene was. In my opinion, felids were the most evolved terrestrial and mammalien 100 % predators. And among them, the biggest ones, lions and tigers were the most victorious too. Without the human rise, they would have been stayed the most performing ones. Natural animal supremacies depend on long-term natural cycles. The human apparition and supremacy were, by contrast, very short. As soon as the human specy ceased to be a nomad population (Neolitic) in order to become a sedentary one by starting to accumulate some food stocks, the market economy was born. The wild life decline was irrecoverably engaged. But it's an other story. (07-30-2021, 12:47 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws : Keep in mind that the Holocene humans are just much more powerful and disruptive than its Pleistocene counterparts. Since both Panthera tigris and Panthera leo had survived from the Pleistocene humans with their giant form, while they are currently struggling against the more numerous Holocene humans with much more lethal technologies. Oddly, Panthera spelaea didn't even manage to survive against the Pleistocene humans with backward technologies.   *This image is copyright of its original author For this specimen, I alluded earlier to how I am skeptical of this being from Manchuria. For one, the preservation is not normal for Manchuria. We would expect to see other species with similar preservations. Also, the anatomy of the masseteric fossa is more western Eurasian in nature. I delved into reports and found a mandible from Russia with the exact same preservation:  *This image is copyright of its original author This mandible was found from a mine in Kemerovo region of southwestern Siberia and is dated to about 30 kya. A lot of Chinese sellers get their supply from these Siberian mines. As such, I believe the giant mandible is not Manchurian or Beringean, but rather from the eastern most extent of the larger west Eurasian last interglacial cave lion.
My friends @GrizzlyClaws and @Spalea, your discussion is very interesting. I think I can add some documents to discuss. However, perhaps we could move the discussion to either the cave lion thread or the interspecific interactions thread. What do you think?
@tigerluver :
Thank you @tigerluver ! It's very kind of you, because I fear no more to be a specialist (my universitary studies in paleontolgy date from the 80s), but it's clear we had a very interesting exchange of views, @GrizzlyClaws and me. Thus, with pleasure ! |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |