|
Skulls, Skeletons, Canines & Claws
|
Amur tiger
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
@GrizzlyClaws:
About #292: "An extremely large Cave lion fang from Russia, almost 6 inches long"... That is enormous ! Almost 6 inches long, that is 16 centimeters ! By seeing the photos you posted, I quoted 11 cm for a normal, solid, lion's fang, 12 cm for a normal, solid, tiger's fang. Why such a difference ? Nevertheless by seeing the cave lion's fang you today posted I note that the part of the tooth which is sunk in the gum is quite straight, i.e not curved at all like in the cases of the extant lions and tigers. Do you confirm this ? If yes, do you have an hypothesis explaining this fact ? Thank you in advance !
6 inches is equivalent to 15.24 cm, and this fang is close 15 cm which means almost 6 inches.
I notice the Cave lion fang is straighter like the Amur tiger fang, and its root is not as narrow as that of the modern lions. BTW, the Cave lion seems to have proportionally longer canines than the modern lions. A 40 cm modern lion skull has 12 cm canines, whereas a 38.5 cm Cave lion skull got 12.7 cm canines. So can you imagine the skull of the Cave lion that got 15 cm canines?
African lion
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
African lion
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
African lion
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
@GrizzlyClaws:
About #294: I made an error... I have taken 2,7 cm for an inch (and not 2,54 cm). Indeed, almost 6 inches large means almost 15,24 cm (and not 16,2 cm). Nevertheless, you make me believe that this cave lion was exceptionnal. Thus, ordinary, the cave lion had fangs between 12 and 13 cm long. Is it correct ? Could we conclude that the cave lion's fangs being as straight as the tiger's ones, the cave lion was a solitary big feline like the extant tiger ? According to the examination of the fangs ? (11-15-2016, 03:13 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws: Check the Cave lion skull and canine replicas from Bone Clone. This holotype came from Alaska, the length of the skull is around 38.5 cm and the length of the canine is around 12.7 cm. So you are right, the ordinary male Cave lions got the canines between 12 to 13 cm, and it was proportionally longer than the African lion canine corresponding to the skull ratio. https://boneclones.com/product/cave-lion-skull-BC-104 https://boneclones.com/product/cave-lion-canine-KO-104 And you can also check the post #2 in this thread, there is a 15.5 cm Cave lion canine which I previously mistaken as an Amur tiger canine. Compared to the real Amur tiger canine, its root is only slightly narrower, not extremely narrow like that of the African lion canine. The real Amur tiger canine is also smoother than the Cave lion canine, but the Cave lion canine is smoother than the African lion canine. They were the group of lions that convergently evolved toward tiger. Maybe it is due the life style of the Cave lion. The male Cave lions were also solitary hunters, while the female Cave lions used to live in pride. The largest ever Cave lion canine is probably around 15-16 cm, and the largest African lion canine I heard about was 13.7 cm, and this particular African lion canine was already belonged to an extremely freak specimen, yet it is still shy of the largest Cave lion canine.
@Spalea
I think the reason why tiger got smoother and sharper canine teeth is maybe due the necessity to dispose its preys as quick as possible. By quickly severing the prey's windpipe or spinal cord could avoid the injuries during the struggle. While lions working in group by mostly suffocating its preys via the snout or windpipe, so they don't need sharper canine teeth. The Cave lions were definitely convergently evolving toward the tigers, and their predation mechanism is also closer to that of the tigers. And notice how the American lion got proportionally shorter/thicker canine teeth despite having a much larger skull than the Cave lion.  *This image is copyright of its original author
@GrizzlyClaws:
Thank's a lot for your explanations ! According to what yo said: "The real Amur tiger canine is also smoother than the Cave lion canine, but the Cave lion canine is smoother than the African lion canine. They were the group of lions that convergently evolved toward tiger. Maybe it is due the life style of the Cave lion. The male Cave lions were also solitary hunters, while the female Cave lions used to live in pride." Could we conclude that the male cave lions' fangs are smoother too than the female cave lions' ones ? If they have been using to be solitary hunters for several thousand years it could be so... May be a supplementar proof of their lifestyle, a little bit similar to the extant asiatic lions ? You also said: "And notice how the American lion got proportionally shorter/thicker canine teeth despite having a much larger skull than the Cave lion." So, what can we conclude as concerns the American lion ? Was he a more sociable cat than the european cave lion ? (11-15-2016, 12:43 PM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws: I am not 100% sure if there is a major morphological difference between the canine teeth of the male and female Cave lions. But one thing I am quite certain is that the Cave lion was evolved to be quite tiger-like in many aspects. Check their skull proportion/structure which has short broad muzzle like the Amur tiger, and their canine teeth also have broad root at the end like the tiger canine teeth.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(11-15-2016, 12:43 PM)Spalea Wrote: You also said: "And notice how the American lion got proportionally shorter/thicker canine teeth despite having a much larger skull than the Cave lion." I also think in this way. From my own research and tigerluver's, we can all agree the conclusion that the American lions appeared to bear a lot of more resemblance with the African lions, unlike the Cave lions that resembled more like the Amur tigers. The only reason could stand with this fact is that the Cave lions might have abandoned the traditional social structure of the lion, they evolved in a different way. The other hypothesis could also suggest that the Cave lion was the earliest lion branch that diverged from other lions, thus they were the most different looking one. 
@Spalea , regarding sociality, the most recent study to make a conclusions was Bocherens et al. (2011). Isotopic signatures of cave lion bones showed a strong preference for reindeer (Rangifer rangifer) and occasionally cave bear. Bocherens et al. (2011) further predicts that the cave bears eaten were cubs or young based on predatory damage on such fossils (p. 257 in the hyperlinked paper). Both prey species are either smalller than or equal in size to the cave lion. This prey to predator size ratio plus the lack of the male mane has been used as evidence to say the cave lion was solitary (I've not read of females living in prides, I may have missed something). Evidence that could say otherwise would be some cave arts that do show a group of lions as well as the cave lion's open steppe habitat. Universally, forests prevent sociality while open areas allow and may even encourage sociality (you'll find this trend in ungulates, cats, and birds quite easily, see this starling example as support). I can leave the final decision to the reader, but does one think a 200 kg average prey size support a pride of 200 kg (averaging males and females) cave lions? If not, @GrizzlyClaws point on the convergent cranial evolution between the species hinting at lifestyle similarities hold a lot of water. The similarity is striking enough that scientists (before access to molecular technology) have proposed a "Panthera tigris spelaea" (now shown to be incorrect). For instance, Groiss (1990) proposed such based on the narrow braincases of the cave lion and the tiger. Considering convergence occurs when the driving forces behind natural selection are the same between two convergers, it would be logical to assume the cave lion lived somewhat (postcranial anatomy paints a bit different of a picture) like the modern tiger.
@tigerluver:
About #304: Thank you very much for your explanations ! I retain the cave lion, being perhaps the most ancient lion form lived like an extant tiger, and afterwards the lions had a more and more sociable life (and at the same time as a more and more developped mane). And this, according to the fangs examination. It's very interesting and fascinating to note with regard to the extant big cats what we can conclude about the prehistoric ones. Thank you too as concerns the links you indicated. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |