Login

GuateGojira · 05-06-2022, 04:33 AM

Excellent analysis @tigerluver, as always, and with this I think that we can correct the wrong idea (that sadly I also helped to create) that this particular giant skull was the biggest of all the cat skulls. Disappointed

Based in the measurements, this will put the Mokhnevskaya Cave skull (ca 475.0 in GSL and 422.0 in CBL) as a contendor for the biggest felid skull at this time, which is less than 8 mm larger in GSL but 2.3 mm smaller in CBL than the biggest Panthera atrox skull (467.5 in GSL and 424.3 in CBL). In the image that you presented, these two skulls will look basically of the same size.

tigerluver · 05-06-2022, 04:40 AM

(05-06-2022, 04:33 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Excellent analysis @tigerluver, as always, and with this I think that we can correct the wrong idea (that sadly I also helped to create) that this particular giant skull was the biggest of all the cat skulls.

Based in the measurements, this will put the Mokhnevskaya Cave skull (ca 475.0 in GSL and 422.0 in CBL) as a contendor for the biggest felid skull at this time, which is less than 8 mm larger in GSL but 2.3 mm smaller in CBL than the biggest Panthera atrox skull (467.5 in GSL and 424.3 in CBL). In the image that you presented, these two skulls will look basically of the same size.

Here's the catch, the Mokhnevskaya Cave skull has a CBL (422 mm) that is less than the CBL of the 467.5 mm skull of P. atrox (CBL 424.3 mm). Same trend from the basal length (Mokhnevskaya Cave skull is 398 mm, P. atrox is 404.7 mm). The Mokhnevskaya Cave skull is missing some posterior portion, and the 475 mm GSL might be a slight overestimate.

GuateGojira · 05-06-2022, 04:47 AM

(05-06-2022, 04:40 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Here's the catch, the Mokhnevskaya Cave skull has a CBL (422 mm) that is less than the CBL of the 467.5 mm skull of P. atrox (CBL 424.3 mm). The Mokhnevskaya Cave skull is missing some posterior portion, and the 475 mm GSL might be a slight overestimate.

You are completelly right. And as far I remember the CBL is more reliable as the final part of the skull crest maybe a little longer for muscles attachment and increasing the length of the skull, but the CBL is more reliable to calculate skull sizes and body sizes overall. In this case, Panthera atrox will recover the title for the biggest felid complete skull found at this moment, but with a mandible of 318 mm, it is certainly smaller than the big mandible of the giant Bornean tiger, thus the skull of this last one will be bigger.

Even the mandible of CHA.1‑98‑C3‑246 is smaller that these two giants, with only 280 mm, if I am reading the table of Argant & Argant (2018) correctly.

By the way, do you have a picture of the Mokhnevskaya cave "lion"?

tigerluver · 05-06-2022, 05:50 AM

(05-06-2022, 02:39 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-06-2022, 12:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Nice find @GuateGojira. You lead me to find the paper describing the skull:
https://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/10390

Wooooow! Great information man, thank you for sharing.

Now, if I am not mistaken, this table is about all the bones of the specimen asociated, correct?

*This image is copyright of its original author

If that is correct, the bones are not exceptional at all, in fact, they are average for Panthera atrox and just slightly longer than the biggest modern tigers. And checking the skull, it is so crushed that it could be possible that its sceptional length could be just an efect of that?

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, this is the skull CHA.1‑98‑C3‑246 of 483.6 mm, is very flat and deformed, but please tell me your appreciation.

The associations are a bit unclear.

Here is the grid from Argant (1991) that we base this discussion on:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another view of the stratigraphy from another Argant work. The bones are found in piles essentially. The identification tags of the bones are descriptors of the coordinates they were found.

*This image is copyright of its original author

I believe the table for Panthera gombaszogensis does show the assumed to be associated individual. In Argant (2011), they state these pieces come from the same individual:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This individual is from F.8-G.8:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The post-cranial material in the table spans the same areas:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now I do not think the skeleton is in perfect articulation. Take a look at their figure (red is tibia, yellow is skull) of how the bones are found:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The identification for the skull is CHA 1-00-F8-73. The identification of the tibia CHA 1-00-F8-40. F8 is the column/row combination. 00, 73, and 40 must be some type of coordinates within the square. These should be the specimens in the table as if we measure from the photo, they are about the same length just as the table reads. I am also more certain these are the associated skull and tibia referenced in the skeletal diagram as the tibia is the right tibia (droit) and in the diagram, the right tibia is shown as found.

Therefore, the fact the in the P. gombaszogensis most of the bones are from F.8 indicates that the detailed bones are from the proposed articulated individual. The bones under F.7 and G.8 are also bones from the proposed skeleton as these range falls under "F8-G8" as shown in the excerpt above.

I get more uncertain with the lion though.

The only material Argant has published publicly where he declare explicit association are some hindfoot bones was in his 1991 work. The quote (translated) reads:

"Bones in anatomical connection:
Note in square C.3 the existence of bones of two hind legs of the same individual very large, still partially included in a breach block (already noted in the previous list).
- Left paw; Mtt.2 (C.3-196), Mtt.3 (C.3-196), Mtt.4 (C.3-196), cuboid (C.3-196), 3° cuneiform (C.3-196), phal.l (C.3-196), phal.2 (C.3-196).
- Right leg; Mtt.2 (C.3-201), Mtt.3 (C.3-204), Mtt.4 (C.3-205), astragalus (C.3-215), calcaneus (C.3-210), 2° cuneiform (C.3-211), 3° cuneiform (C.3-211), phal.l - residual finger.l (C.3-210), phal.l - finger.3 (C.3-206), phal.2 - finger.3 (C.3-213), phal.2 (C.3-207), phal.3 (C.3-208), sesamoids ( C.3-204, C.3- 205)."

So these bones are found in articulation as they are in the same square (C3) and the closeness of the 3-digit number indicates they are centimeters from each other. The identifications on the bones in the lion table don't show that they were found in such articulation. Given the way Argant has approached the P. gombaszogensis skeleton, this does not mean the bones are not from the same individual. For ease of reference, here is the lion table:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now look the first grid in this post and put together the spatial locations of the bones. The skull is in the C3 square, interestingly where the foot bones were found. However, given there is an Mtt4 tagged as CHA 1-99-C5-162, if this table is asserting the listed bones are from the same individual then the skull is not of the aforementioned associated foot bones. Moving forward, spatially the femur and tibia look to be next to each other and reasonably could be associated. The front limb bones are not from as close a location, but looking at the grid would be only a few meters apart. The skull itself, found in C3, would be a few meters apart from the rest of the referenced bones as well. Based on P. gombaszogensis, the number "98" has some significance too.

So now the quote noted by @GuateGojira:

*This image is copyright of its original author

"Near the skull" probably fits within the few meter span. But the second figure in this post shows there are lot of other lion fossils around the area. However, a lot of these are recorded before the Chateau skull in Argant (1991) and are found in most often outside of C and D. So for sure the table represents findings beyond the initially already very large sample. So there is some evidence for the table showing associated elements.

My concern is that the mandible is already mentioned in Argant and Brugal (2017) and seems to be an isolated hemimandible. The Chateau skull is said to have both mandibles associated so either the 280 mm is a different individual or was removed from the skull. The fact that the mandible is not broken indicates to me it is of a different individual. So does that also apply to the other bones?

One thing is that none of the post cranial bones (both the individually mentioned fossils and the average) that are good mass predictors (femur, humerus, and less so ulna, radius, and tibia) show an exceptionally immense animal. So if the post-crania of the Chateau skull is cataloged in there somewhere, its head was quite big for its body.

Forgive my typos, I will (maybe) correct them when I have more time. This analysis may change as I work on getting more information.

Edit:

Another thought came to mind. Argant states that the skull's great preservation indicates rapid burial. By that idea, the rest of the body should also have been rapidly buried and therefore, should be equally as well preserved. This might be reason for the complete long bones being from the same skull, as intrinsically the bones being intact hints at them joining the skull the moment of the rapid burial event.

tigerluver · 05-06-2022, 05:51 AM

(05-06-2022, 04:47 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-06-2022, 04:40 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Here's the catch, the Mokhnevskaya Cave skull has a CBL (422 mm) that is less than the CBL of the 467.5 mm skull of P. atrox (CBL 424.3 mm). The Mokhnevskaya Cave skull is missing some posterior portion, and the 475 mm GSL might be a slight overestimate.

You are completelly right. And as far I remember the CBL is more reliable as the final part of the skull crest maybe a little longer for muscles attachment and increasing the length of the skull, but the CBL is more reliable to calculate skull sizes and body sizes overall. In this case, Panthera atrox will recover the title for the biggest felid complete skull found at this moment, but with a mandible of 318 mm, it is certainly smaller than the big mandible of the giant Bornean tiger, thus the skull of this last one will be bigger.

Even the mandible of CHA.1‑98‑C3‑246 is smaller that these two giants, with only 280 mm, if I am reading the table of Argant & Argant (2018) correctly.

By the way, do you have a picture of the Mokhnevskaya cave "lion"?

Unfortunately, it was never figured anywhere. Just mentioned in Baryshnikov and Tsoukala (2010) as a private collection and picked up by Marciszak from that paper.

GuateGojira · 05-06-2022, 09:59 PM

(05-06-2022, 05:51 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Unfortunately, it was never figured anywhere. Just mentioned in Baryshnikov and Tsoukala (2010) as a private collection and picked up by Marciszak from that paper.

It is sad that those specimens are not available for public studies, however the owner at least allowed to take measurements on it, not like some Chinese collectors that have huge specimens (like the large skull presented by @GrizzlyClaws) that remain unstudied and hidden.

LonePredator · 05-06-2022, 10:02 PM

(05-06-2022, 09:59 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-06-2022, 05:51 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Unfortunately, it was never figured anywhere. Just mentioned in Baryshnikov and Tsoukala (2010) as a private collection and picked up by Marciszak from that paper.

It is sad that those specimens are not available for public studies, however the owner at least allowed to take measurements on it, not like some Chinese collectors that have huge specimens (like the large skull presented by @GrizzlyClaws) that remain unstudied and hidden.

Do you know which animal did that large skull belong to? (the one which @GrizzlyClaws presented)

GuateGojira · 05-07-2022, 01:00 AM

(05-06-2022, 10:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Do you know which animal did that large skull belong to? (the one which @GrizzlyClaws presented)

A giant tiger, here is the skull:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sadly, no other detail is known.

LonePredator · 05-07-2022, 03:06 AM

(05-07-2022, 01:00 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-06-2022, 10:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Do you know which animal did that large skull belong to? (the one which @GrizzlyClaws presented)

A giant tiger, here is the skull:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sadly, no other detail is known.

Ahh this one, I didn’t realise you were talking about the same one.

Anyway, can we make any rough guesses of its GSL length? Would its size rival the size of a reconstructed Pleistocene Borneo Tiger skull?

jrocks · 05-07-2022, 03:25 AM

(05-06-2022, 05:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
(05-06-2022, 02:39 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-06-2022, 12:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Nice find @GuateGojira. You lead me to find the paper describing the skull:
https://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/10390

Wooooow! Great information man, thank you for sharing.

Now, if I am not mistaken, this table is about all the bones of the specimen asociated, correct?

*This image is copyright of its original author

If that is correct, the bones are not exceptional at all, in fact, they are average for Panthera atrox and just slightly longer than the biggest modern tigers. And checking the skull, it is so crushed that it could be possible that its sceptional length could be just an efect of that?

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, this is the skull CHA.1‑98‑C3‑246 of 483.6 mm, is very flat and deformed, but please tell me your appreciation.

The associations are a bit unclear.

Here is the grid from Argant (1991) that we base this discussion on:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another view of the stratigraphy from another Argant work. The bones are found in piles essentially. The identification tags of the bones are descriptors of the coordinates they were found.

*This image is copyright of its original author

I believe the table for Panthera gombaszogensis does show the assumed to be associated individual. In Argant (2011), they state these pieces come from the same individual:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This individual is from F.8-G.8:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The post-cranial material in the table spans the same areas:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now I do not think the skeleton is in perfect articulation. Take a look at their figure (red is tibia, yellow is skull) of how the bones are found:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The identification for the skull is CHA 1-00-F8-73. The identification of the tibia CHA 1-00-F8-40. F8 is the column/row combination. 00, 73, and 40 must be some type of coordinates within the square. These should be the specimens in the table as if we measure from the photo, they are about the same length just as the table reads. I am also more certain these are the associated skull and tibia referenced in the skeletal diagram as the tibia is the right tibia (droit) and in the diagram, the right tibia is shown as found.

Therefore, the fact the in the P. gombaszogensis most of the bones are from F.8 indicates that the detailed bones are from the proposed articulated individual. The bones under F.7 and G.8 are also bones from the proposed skeleton as these range falls under "F8-G8" as shown in the excerpt above.

I get more uncertain with the lion though.

The only material Argant has published publicly where he declare explicit association are some hindfoot bones was in his 1991 work. The quote (translated) reads:

"Bones in anatomical connection:
Note in square C.3 the existence of bones of two hind legs of the same individual very large, still partially included in a breach block (already noted in the previous list).
- Left paw; Mtt.2 (C.3-196), Mtt.3 (C.3-196), Mtt.4 (C.3-196), cuboid (C.3-196), 3° cuneiform (C.3-196), phal.l (C.3-196), phal.2 (C.3-196).
- Right leg; Mtt.2 (C.3-201), Mtt.3 (C.3-204), Mtt.4 (C.3-205), astragalus (C.3-215), calcaneus (C.3-210), 2° cuneiform (C.3-211), 3° cuneiform (C.3-211), phal.l - residual finger.l (C.3-210), phal.l - finger.3 (C.3-206), phal.2 - finger.3 (C.3-213), phal.2 (C.3-207), phal.3 (C.3-208), sesamoids ( C.3-204, C.3- 205)."

So these bones are found in articulation as they are in the same square (C3) and the closeness of the 3-digit number indicates they are centimeters from each other. The identifications on the bones in the lion table don't show that they were found in such articulation. Given the way Argant has approached the P. gombaszogensis skeleton, this does not mean the bones are not from the same individual. For ease of reference, here is the lion table:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now look the first grid in this post and put together the spatial locations of the bones. The skull is in the C3 square, interestingly where the foot bones were found. However, given there is an Mtt4 tagged as CHA 1-99-C5-162, if this table is asserting the listed bones are from the same individual then the skull is not of the aforementioned associated foot bones. Moving forward, spatially the femur and tibia look to be next to each other and reasonably could be associated. The front limb bones are not from as close a location, but looking at the grid would be only a few meters apart. The skull itself, found in C3, would be a few meters apart from the rest of the referenced bones as well. Based on P. gombaszogensis, the number "98" has some significance too.

So now the quote noted by @GuateGojira:

*This image is copyright of its original author

"Near the skull" probably fits within the few meter span. But the second figure in this post shows there are lot of other lion fossils around the area. However, a lot of these are recorded before the Chateau skull in Argant (1991) and are found in most often outside of C and D. So for sure the table represents findings beyond the initially already very large sample. So there is some evidence for the table showing associated elements.

My concern is that the mandible is already mentioned in Argant and Brugal (2017) and seems to be an isolated hemimandible. The Chateau skull is said to have both mandibles associated so either the 280 mm is a different individual or was removed from the skull. The fact that the mandible is not broken indicates to me it is of a different individual. So does that also apply to the other bones?

One thing is that none of the post cranial bones (both the individually mentioned fossils and the average) that are good mass predictors (femur, humerus, and less so ulna, radius, and tibia) show an exceptionally immense animal. So if the post-crania of the Chateau skull is cataloged in there somewhere, its head was quite big for its body.

Forgive my typos, I will (maybe) correct them when I have more time. This analysis may change as I work on getting more information.

Edit:

Another thought came to mind. Argant states that the skull's great preservation indicates rapid burial. By that idea, the rest of the body should also have been rapidly buried and therefore, should be equally as well preserved. This might be reason for the complete long bones being from the same skull, as intrinsically the bones being intact hints at them joining the skull the moment of the rapid burial event.

Hi @tigerluver,

what do you think the weights are at for the largest specimens of these prehistoric cats

jrocks

GuateGojira · 05-08-2022, 07:41 AM

(05-07-2022, 03:06 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Anyway, can we make any rough guesses of its GSL length? Would its size rival the size of a reconstructed Pleistocene Borneo Tiger skull?

I remember that I made an estimation, but it was many years ago and I no longer remember it. The form of the picture do not allow us to make to much on it, so I used the arm wide and I guess that I estimated at c.450 mm, but honestly I don't remember any more.

The mandible of the Borneo tiger suggest a bigger skull of about 480 mm.

jrocks · 05-13-2022, 02:33 AM

(05-08-2022, 07:41 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-07-2022, 03:06 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Anyway, can we make any rough guesses of its GSL length? Would its size rival the size of a reconstructed Pleistocene Borneo Tiger skull?

I remember that I made an estimation, but it was many years ago and I no longer remember it. The form of the picture do not allow us to make to much on it, so I used the arm wide and I guess that I estimated at c.450 mm, but honestly I don't remember any more.

The mandible of the Borneo tiger suggest a bigger skull of about 480 mm.

Hi @GuateGojira,

if that bornean tiger fragmented mandible was a 480 mm skull, do you think its possible to know how much it weighed

GuateGojira · 05-13-2022, 03:32 AM

(05-13-2022, 02:33 AM)jrocks Wrote: Hi @GuateGojira,

if that bornean tiger fragmented mandible was a 480 mm skull, do you think its possible to know how much it weighed

Yes, is possible, in fact Sherani (2019) made an estimation of c.480 kg, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

You can check the original document for details.

jrocks · 05-13-2022, 04:02 AM

(05-13-2022, 03:32 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-13-2022, 02:33 AM)jrocks Wrote: Hi @GuateGojira,

if that bornean tiger fragmented mandible was a 480 mm skull, do you think its possible to know how much it weighed

Yes, is possible, in fact Sherani (2019) made an estimation of c.480 kg, check it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

You can check the original document for details.

oh wow, so this means that the bornean tiger could rival populator in weight or even surpass it

GuateGojira · 05-13-2022, 04:45 AM

(05-13-2022, 04:02 AM)jrocks Wrote: oh wow, so this means that the bornean tiger could rival populator in weight or even surpass it

Yes, because even when Panthera members are not as robust as Smilodon members, the size itself of this specimen compensate it.

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?