|
Smilodon populator
|
 (05-13-2022, 04:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(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 this borneo specimen must have been absolutely massive. i did some more looking into it to see if i could find any populator specimens that were estimated to be around the range of this borneo specimen, i found Prevosti and Martin in 2013 estimated a humerus and tibia and some dental bones of populator to be 517 kg, the populator specimen in the Sherani 2019 study was said to be 450 kg, and then there was a populator specimen that Peter Lund estimated to be more than 500 kg, but that specimen then got destroyed in the fire of the national museum of Rio De Janeiro in 2018, were these 3 specimens larger or smaller in size compared to the 405 mm humerus found by kurten and werdelin in 1990 and the 16.07 inch skull? also are there any pictures of the specimen peter lund estimated before it got destroyed (05-13-2022, 08:27 AM)jrocks Wrote:(05-13-2022, 04:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(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 Can you attach the sources you are talking about? (05-13-2022, 08:38 AM)LonePredator Wrote:this one is the sherani study which is from 2016, i thought it was the 2019 study but i realized that after i made the above comment, he shows the estimation on the last slide https://peerj.com/preprints/2327v2/(05-13-2022, 08:27 AM)jrocks Wrote:(05-13-2022, 04:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(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 heres an image of the 517 kg specimen estimation https://carnivora.net/smilodon-populator-t427-s15.html for the one that i said peter lund estimated a specimen and got a figure of around 500 kg, i unfortunately dont have any images of that estimation, i only know because a guy named mojave on carnivora mentioned it, it was a fossil from Lagoa Santa, MG, Brazil. If you look up the fire that happened to that museum it does mention that a smilodon populator fossil got destroyed, however i just cant find any images of that fossil. I was just curious as to how these 3 specimens of populator compared in size to the 405 mm humerus and the 408.4 mm skull, or those 2 as the lund one may be pretty hard to find  (05-13-2022, 08:27 AM)jrocks Wrote: i did some more looking into it to see if i could find any populator specimens that were estimated to be around the range of this borneo specimen, i found Prevosti and Martin in 2013 estimated a humerus and tibia and some dental bones of populator to be 517 kg, the populator specimen in the Sherani 2019 study was said to be 450 kg, and then there was a populator specimen that Peter Lund estimated to be more than 500 kg, but that specimen then got destroyed in the fire of the national museum of Rio De Janeiro in 2018, were these 3 specimens larger or smaller in size compared to the 405 mm humerus found by kurten and werdelin in 1990 and the 16.07 inch skull? also are there any pictures of the specimen peter lund estimated before it got destroyed I have my doubts about this information. As far I now Peter Lund never made an estimation of weight, there is no document about him doing that. About the estimations, they are dependant in the formulas en methods, this table from Werdelin et al. (2018) summarize all the estimations of weight for the Smilodon genus, and Lund is not there:  *This image is copyright of its original author Here we can see the methods and the bones used for those weights, from my part I think that the one from Christiansen & Harris (2005) is still the most reliable, for the moment. By the way, Kurten and Wenderlin (1990) did not presented any long bone measurements, but Berta (1985) did, here are the measurements:  *This image is copyright of its original author Finally, I will like to see the evidence, the news report, or any evidence, stating that those 3 specimens of S. populator were destroyed, as I still don't see a report about that. (05-13-2022, 09:01 AM)jrocks Wrote: for the one that i said peter lund estimated a specimen and got a figure of around 500 kg, i unfortunately dont have any images of that estimation, i only know because a guy named mojave on carnivora mentioned it, it was a fossil from Lagoa Santa, MG, Brazil. If you look up the fire that happened to that museum it does mention that a smilodon populator fossil got destroyed, however i just cant find any images of that fossil. I was just curious as to how these 3 specimens of populator compared in size to the 405 mm humerus and the 408.4 mm skull, or those 2 as the lund one may be pretty hard to find I can't see the images of Carnivora for this poster Mojave. May you please put them here? Also, as I said before, we need evidence of that claim about the destroyed specimens, because this is the first time that I hear this and sound like an internet myth, but I will like to give the benefit of the doubt if evidence is presented. As far I remember the longest humerus from S. populator is of 395 mm, one of 405 mm will be impressive. (05-16-2022, 11:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(05-13-2022, 09:01 AM)jrocks Wrote: for the one that i said peter lund estimated a specimen and got a figure of around 500 kg, i unfortunately dont have any images of that estimation, i only know because a guy named mojave on carnivora mentioned it, it was a fossil from Lagoa Santa, MG, Brazil. If you look up the fire that happened to that museum it does mention that a smilodon populator fossil got destroyed, however i just cant find any images of that fossil. I was just curious as to how these 3 specimens of populator compared in size to the 405 mm humerus and the 408.4 mm skull, or those 2 as the lund one may be pretty hard to find heres a link with an image of the specimen in the rio de janero museum before the museum got destroyed in a big fire in 2018, there is a mixture of the original bones and replica ones and it doesnt really say which ones are the original and what their measurements are, i asked mojave on the carnivora page what the measurements were of the remains of this specimen but he hasnt given a reply yet, so i guess for now i wont count that one. also, this was the only specimen that was destroyed, i dont think the other 2 that i mentioned are destroyed, if i did say they were my bad on that https://news.mongabay.com/2018/09/a-braz...seum-fire/ as for the 405 mm humerus i mentioned earlier, tigerluver said earlier in this thread that there was a 405 humerus from kerten and werdelin in 1990, so thats where i found out the 405 mm humerus from. also, do you know if there are any images of the 408.4 mm skull (05-17-2022, 02:39 AM)jrocks Wrote: as for the 405 mm humerus i mentioned earlier, tigerluver said earlier in this thread that there was a 405 humerus from kerten and werdelin in 1990, so thats where i found out the 405 mm humerus from. also, do you know if there are any images of the 408.4 mm skull I remember, and is just my memory, that Kurten & Wenderlin (1990) showed only measurements from the metapodials, but if @tigerluver told you that they quote an humerus of 405 mm, I will believe in him. Sadly, the only time that I saw any data about the skull "Smilodon bonaërensis 10-1" of 408.4 mm in GSL is the document of Mendez Alzola (1933) and in any other place. (05-17-2022, 02:58 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(05-17-2022, 02:39 AM)jrocks Wrote: as for the 405 mm humerus i mentioned earlier, tigerluver said earlier in this thread that there was a 405 humerus from kerten and werdelin in 1990, so thats where i found out the 405 mm humerus from. also, do you know if there are any images of the 408.4 mm skull wow that document with bonaerensis 10-1 was made all the way back in 1933. Which specimen do you think was bigger, the 16.07 inch skull or the 405 mm humerus
@tigerluver Do you know of any of the regression based equations to measure the weight of Tigers from their chest girth or body length?? Can you tell me these equations?
Also, which of the following regression are those equations derived from??
(05-17-2022, 07:36 AM)jrocks Wrote: wow that document with bonaerensis 10-1 was made all the way back in 1933. Which specimen do you think was bigger, the 16.07 inch skull or the 405 mm humerus In order to know that we will need an skeleton with associated elements, like "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46", the only associated specimen of Smilodon populator that I know (skull included). The skull length of that specimen is of 345.7 mm and the humerus is of 395 mm. In this case, the skull of 408.4 mm is 18% bigger, while the humerus of 405 mm is only near 3% bigger. In theory, this means that the specimen represented by the skull is bigger than the specimen represented by the humerus, assuming equal proportions and using the specimen "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46" as a surrogate. (05-17-2022, 08:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(05-17-2022, 07:36 AM)jrocks Wrote: wow that document with bonaerensis 10-1 was made all the way back in 1933. Which specimen do you think was bigger, the 16.07 inch skull or the 405 mm humerus That specimen with 408cm skull was the one which was considered the heaviest Populator specimen, am I correct? Wasn’t his weight estimated at just over 400kg? So with what we have, is that 400kg weight the highest estimated weight for Smilodon Populator till now? Or is there any heavier estimated specimen? (05-17-2022, 08:59 PM)LonePredator Wrote: That specimen with 408cm skull was the one which was considered the heaviest Populator specimen, am I correct? Wasn’t his weight estimated at just over 400kg? In fact, no weight estimation exist for the skull of 408 mm at this moment. The large skull from Uruguay MNHN-P 957 is the one that was estimated at 436 kg with a GSL of 392 mm, so "Smilodon bonaërensis 10-1" was probably bigger and heavier. About the estimations, it depends of the formula and method, as the biggest estimation at this moment is of 517 kg (check one of the previous images that I posted for details), but if we use only the information from Christiansen & Harris (2005) the heaviest one used by them is of 358.4 kg "weighted" and came from specimen MLP10-13 (Humerus of 387.5 mm), but the authors stated that bigger specimens, like the one in Paris were heavier and could reach 400 kg. Now we can see that even "Smilodon bonaërensis - 46" had a bigger humerus than MLP10-13, which suggest a bigger body mass, and as MNHN-P 957 and "Smilodon bonaërensis 10-1" are even bigger than both of them, the figure or 400 kg could be clearly surpassed by the biggest specimens of Smilodon populator. By the way, I tried to search information about the specimen in Paris, but sadly I could not found anything, yet...... (05-17-2022, 09:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(05-17-2022, 08:59 PM)LonePredator Wrote: That specimen with 408cm skull was the one which was considered the heaviest Populator specimen, am I correct? Wasn’t his weight estimated at just over 400kg? Yes, the 517kg weight must be treated with extreme caution because estimating the weight of Smilodon Populator is no easy task, we have no living animal which has the same or similar proportions as Smilodon Populators unlike in the case of prehistoric Lions and Tigers which are much more easier to estimate as animals with similar or almost same proportions as them still exist. Now for this reason, the method used would make or break the whole estimation. And since the method of Christiansen and Harris (2005) is considered the most reliable, we could have used their 358.4kg specimen as surrogate to make a rough isometric estimation for these specimens but the problem is that the 358.4kg specimen was based on the humerus so isometric scaling can only be done on another humerus. Unfortunately we only have skulls on our hands and it would not be possible to estimate their weight unless we get our hands on the original method of Christiansen and Harris and see how it works and how it could apply in this case if it really can. (05-17-2022, 08:05 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(05-17-2022, 07:36 AM)jrocks Wrote: wow that document with bonaerensis 10-1 was made all the way back in 1933. Which specimen do you think was bigger, the 16.07 inch skull or the 405 mm humerus oh ok, thanks for clarifying that (05-17-2022, 10:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote:(05-17-2022, 09:28 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(05-17-2022, 08:59 PM)LonePredator Wrote: That specimen with 408cm skull was the one which was considered the heaviest Populator specimen, am I correct? Wasn’t his weight estimated at just over 400kg? i think when i was looking for the sources for the comment guate asked me on earlier, there was some study that said that the christiansen and harris 2005 formula did something that underestimated the smilodon specimens they estimated i think because of the bone width although im not sure, if i find the link to that study il edit it in here |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |