There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
11-05-2018, 01:43 PM( This post was last modified: 11-05-2018, 01:54 PM by peter )
(11-05-2018, 11:25 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:21 AM)Wolverine Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:10 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:07 AM)Wolverine Wrote: @tigerluver , @GuateGojira probably you have heard about the famous liger Hercules, having shoulder height "only" 49 inches (125 cm) it weighted 418 kg, we could imagine what will be a weight of liger 135-140 cm tall. According other version this liger was 132 cm tall. Of course Hercules as a domestic animal was a bit overweight.
So that record P. fossilis had a skull 485 mm... I'm quite sure that it weight was half ton.
The head length is actually smaller than the skull length.
There was a renowned captive Amur tiger with a 500 mm head, but his skull was definitely less than that.
According to Dr. Gewalt, the Duisburg zoo tiger was 210 cm. in head and body (and 320 cm. in total length measured in a straight line). His head had a length of 50 cm. The captive male measured by V. Mazak in the Prague zoo had a head and body length of 220 cm. in a straight line. His head had a length of 45 cm. The skull of that male was 371 mm. in greatest total length. It's likely the Duisburg zoo tiger had a longer skull, but it was never measured.
Assuming the skull of the captive male tiger shot in the Koln zoo some years ago really was at least 410 mm. in greatest total length, it can't be excluded that exceptional captive male Amur tigers can reach a greatest skull length of 400-420 mm.
An average Late Pleistocene European male lion might have compared to the largest captive male Amur tigers today. The male found close to Siegburg (Germany) had an estimated head and body length of 210 cm. In greatest total skull length, he compared to a very large wild male Amur tiger shot in Manchuria. The skull of that tiger was measured by V. Mazak in Berlin some decades ago. Based on the skull length of some Late Pleistocene European lions, it's very likely that large males well exceeded 210 cm. in head and body length measured in a straight line.
Baryshnikov measured skulls of Amur tigers and Late Pleistocene lions found in a number of caves in the Russian Far East in the sixties and seventies of the last century. Sizewise, the tigers back then (40 000 - 50 000 years ago) more or less compared to those of today. Although not small by any means, they were outsized in all departments. This although the lions in eastern Russia were smaller than those in Europe.
Lions started losing size in the Early and Middle Pleistocene. In central and eastern parts of Russia, as well as Berengia, this process was accelerated. The most likely reason is they needed more energy to find smaller (and more agile) herbivores. Skulls of male lions found in caves in eastern Russia showed a number of 'tigerlike' treats. Could have been a result of a more solitary way of life. In the end, however, they didn't make it. Amur tigers, smaller and still more solitary, did.
After the Pleistocene lions disappeared, tigers added some inches and pounds, but my guess is they never reached the size of Pleistocene lions. In the Holocene, largely as a result of the rise of humans, tigers adapted once more. Although exceptional individuals were seen every now and then until recently, the conditions to get to their potential are gone. In southeastern Russia and northeastern China, that is. When they get more room in that region, chances are we might see a few exceptional individuals in the near future. At the moment, northern India and Nepal produce the largest wild big cats. The reason is quite a bit of room, protection and plenty of large herbivores. In Africa, for the same reasons, lions in Kruger are larger than in other regions (averages).
Although they used the same caves, it isn't known if lions and tigers co-existed in southeastern Russia 50 000 years ago. My guess is they could have. I don't think there would have been a lot of competition, if at all. Both cats most probably used different areas in a different way. Furthermore, Amur tigers were smaller than Late Pleistocene lions. My guess is they would have avoided them. Today, Amur tigers co-exist with brown bears. Although adult male tigers in particular hunt bears up to the size of adult females every now and then, male brown bears are not hunted. Male brown bears displace tigresses every now and then, but not adult male tigers. Although conflicts are not uncommon, adult males are not often involved. What we have, suggests that young adults (tigers) and desperate individuals (bears) are most likely to enter an all-out.
But bears are cleptocrats often visiting tiger kills, which will result in an increased chance to meet the owner of the kill. Pleistocene lions were hunters, meaning they most probably seldom visited kills of Amur tigers. Big cats eliminate scavengers to preserve energy. Hunting smaller competitors to protect their offspring only happens when they live in close proximity. In southeastern Russia, few leopards perish in the jaws of a tiger, but in northern India and Nepal, they live in close proximity.
Just before they disappeared Pleistocene lions might have been involved in competition with Amur tigers, but incidents most probably were few and far between. Baryshnikov didn't find anything pointing towards competition between both cats, but some bones showed that both cats might have competed with hyenas and wolves.
(11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Wolverine , I have not read of the released measurements for those fossils since their photos showed up years ago. However, I am certain larger P. fossilis are already on record. Let's use an ideal 200 kg lion as the isometric comparison.
The formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
Was the 192 mm MTIII specimen larger than the Chateau skull?
If we use the respective body parts of a 200 kg lion as the samples, it does appear so.
Maybe the 192 mm MTIII specimen could acquire a skull close to 500 mm which is the absolute maximum for any Panthera specimen?
The MTIII is a difficult one. One issue is that when calculating the range of weights produced by isometry, the range I found was as low as 400 kg to as high a over 500 kg. In other words, the bone is not that well correlated to body size, but is nonetheless from a top 10 Panthera specimen. The second issue is that if P. fossilis is more cursorial, the MTIII would be proportionately elongated and isometrically comparing the bone to that of an extant lion will heavily overestimate the weight. Thus extrapolating other body parts is filled with uncertainty. A skull length range of 450-500 mm would not be illogical in my opinion.
The issue can be applied to the skull. P. spelaea had a big skull for its bones, bigger than the extant lion. For instance, the specimen is Sabol (2018) has a femur to skull ratio of 0.99, which is distinctly less than extant lion generally as the number in P. leo is over 1.00. That means while applying the 484.7 mm skull to P. leo ratios, we'd think the femur would be 500 mm. Likely in reality the femur of the specimen was 470-480 mm, which is not that much bigger than the largest P. spelaea (470 mm femur from Germany mentioned by Deidrich). Of course still absurdly gigantic, but not what P. leo comparisons would lead one to believe. Another confounding issue is that long snouts usually means proportionately longer skulls for a body mass/size. We know that P. fossilis did have a longer snout that P. spelaea, likely making the long bone to skull ratio somewhat lesser in P. fossilis as compared to P. spelaea, further decreasing long bone length extrapolations by a bit. It is for this reason I feel the 465 mm has been underestimated via isometry or the 484.7 mm skull at least overestimated. Unless P. fossilis is exceptionally cursorial, a 465 mm ulna should give a femur of around 480 mm, matching the 484.7 mm skull. Now one can see why mass estimations vary so much, there are too many confounding variables. These two specimens were likely body size-wise just about the same as the 480 mm Ngandong femur for these reasons. Mass is a whole different rabbit hole in its own as the tiger and lion lineages hold mass differently. I have lately avoided addressing the complex topic and just give pure isometry estimates but hopefully this makes sense.
As a whole, the closer the species temporally to an extant species, the more accurate the single bone estimates and vice versa.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
On this issue, I have my own questions regarding Panthera spelaea.
Diedrich & Rothschild (2012) concluded that the cave lion was most likely a pursuit hunter based on bone exostoses on the brachialis muscle attachment point on two individuals, one from the Eemian and the other Weichselian, out of a considerable sample of bones (NISP=1208, MNI Unknown) indicating the use of the paw-sweep used in running, which apparently supports pursuit hunting, as opposed to extant lions which are ambush hunters:
Quote:Exostoses in Smilodon, H. crenatidens and H. latidens are found in the flexor tendons of the upper limb (Heald, 1989; McCall et al., 2003; Moodie, 1923; Shermis, 1983; Turner, 1997) and have been used as evidence for grappling behavior (Rothschild, 2011). The patterns of exostoses in P. l. spelaea have a different distribution (brachialis muscle, reflecting flexion activities), instead supporting the hypothesis of pursuit behavior. The distribution of exostoses (Fig. 7) and enthesial reaction otherwise identifies P. l. spelaea as a pursuit, rather than ambush predator.
However, Schellhorn (2014) concluded based on ulna dimensions that the cave lion bore adaptations closer to forest cats compared to the extant lion, i.e. seemed to be less cursorial, among other things.
Quote:The included fossil cats Dinofelis piveteaui, P. spelaea, and S. fatalis all distinctly plot within the closed or forest habitat in the scatter plots (Figs. 1b, 2e, f).
In this case the sample size was not impressive, only a single ulna was used in this analysis.
And as has been discussed in the literature before, e.g. Sabol (2018), the cave lion was more robustly built than the African lion, and does indeed share similarities to the tiger in some of its features, including in the limb bones.
By scaling the cats down to the same shoulder height, I compared P. atrox, P. leo, and P. spelaea skeletons to each other (left-right, the cave lion skeleton was digitally modified by a friend from an image from this article https://3dprint.com/216653/reconstructing-cave-lion/)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Looking side-by-side, P. spelaea looks somewhat similar proportionally to P. leo, but it is overall noticeably more robust. I don't know exactly what implications this would have for cursoriality, but intuitively one would think it to be a less cursorial, more ambush-oriented predator.
Indeed, assuming the hypothesis of a derivation from P. fossilis, a shortening of the cave lion's distal limbs can be inferred from @tigerluver's calculations on post #52, as we enter the late Pleistocene, which would suggest a reduction in cursoriality.
A similar situation is seen in the cave lion's main competitor, cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) which also have shortened distal limb elements, relative this time to their extant counterpart, which has also been suggested to indicate a less cursorial mode of hunting, among other things:
Quote:The crural index (tibia length/femur length) in the skeleton of Los Aprendices is 0.74, which is similar to the values of Crocuta spelaea (0.75) and Pachycrocuta brevirostris (0.74) and clearly lower than in extant C. crocuta (0.82) (Palmqvist et al., 2011). The shortening of the tibia of C. spelaea suggests a less cursorial lifestyle. Also, such shortening could provide great power and more stability to dismember and carry large parts of carcasses without dragging (Spoor, 1985; Turner and Antón, 1996; Palmqvist et al., 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...o_Zaragoza
Of course this could also be an adaptation towards the colder climate, not just in the cave hyena but the coeval cave lion as well, to reduce the size of extremities. Cave paintings have suggested that the cat had smaller ears, an inference supported by the small ears of the cub remains, as well as the shortened tail found at least in infancy, so the scenario where limbs are also shortened does not seem implausible, but apparently this would happen alongside the retention of a cursorial mode of hunting - assuming the hypotheses of a derivation from fossilis AND the inferences of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) are correct.
Some frozen finds, such as the steppe bison blue babe, suggest a similar hunting behaviour to the extant lion, though of course the duration of the chase is hard to infer in such cases:
*This image is copyright of its original author
(Multiple lions hunting Blue Babe is a bit speculative, but that's besides the point here. A great illustration by Anton, regardless).
Unfortunately I can only attach Schellhorn (2014)'s paper because WildFact won't let me attach the Diedrich paper, but I'll make a new post and attach it there.
Any thoughts on the level of cursoriality possessed by the Late Pleistocene cave lion? Particularly in regards to the hypothesis that they were pursuit hunters? The exact answer isn't clear to me, and this is the data that I can find.
Oddly, Panthera leo looks like the one with biggest skull when the shoulder height being equalized.
When it comes to the cursoriality, Panthera spealea spelaea from the late Pleistocene looks like the one with the lowest level, and it also attained a maximum weight of 300-350 kg, very reminiscent to the largest Manchurian tigers in the history. These two felines were also highly convergently evolved.
Panthera spelaea intermedia from the early late Pleistocene was even larger at 400 kg, with a higher level of cursoriality which is considered a more primitive trait and transitional phase closer to Panthera fossilis.
Panthera spelaea spelaea should be considered as the final stabilized form of the Cave lion family, looks like its ultimate goal was to evolve morphologically closer to Panthera tigris.
So what would your thoughts be on the conclusions of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) of the lion being primarily a pursuit hunter?
(11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Wolverine , I have not read of the released measurements for those fossils since their photos showed up years ago. However, I am certain larger P. fossilis are already on record. Let's use an ideal 200 kg lion as the isometric comparison.
The formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
Was the 192 mm MTIII specimen larger than the Chateau skull?
If we use the respective body parts of a 200 kg lion as the samples, it does appear so.
Maybe the 192 mm MTIII specimen could acquire a skull close to 500 mm which is the absolute maximum for any Panthera specimen?
The MTIII is a difficult one. One issue is that when calculating the range of weights produced by isometry, the range I found was as low as 400 kg to as high a over 500 kg. In other words, the bone is not that well correlated to body size, but is nonetheless from a top 10 Panthera specimen. The second issue is that if P. fossilis is more cursorial, the MTIII would be proportionately elongated and isometrically comparing the bone to that of an extant lion will heavily overestimate the weight. Thus extrapolating other body parts is filled with uncertainty. A skull length range of 450-500 mm would not be illogical in my opinion.
The issue can be applied to the skull. P. spelaea had a big skull for its bones, bigger than the extant lion. For instance, the specimen is Sabol (2018) has a femur to skull ratio of 0.99, which is distinctly less than extant lion generally as the number in P. leo is over 1.00. That means while applying the 484.7 mm skull to P. leo ratios, we'd think the femur would be 500 mm. Likely in reality the femur of the specimen was 470-480 mm, which is not that much bigger than the largest P. spelaea (470 mm femur from Germany mentioned by Deidrich). Of course still absurdly gigantic, but not what P. leo comparisons would lead one to believe. Another confounding issue is that long snouts usually means proportionately longer skulls for a body mass/size. We know that P. fossilis did have a longer snout that P. spelaea, likely making the long bone to skull ratio somewhat lesser in P. fossilis as compared to P. spelaea, further decreasing long bone length extrapolations by a bit. It is for this reason I feel the 465 mm has been underestimated via isometry or the 484.7 mm skull at least overestimated. Unless P. fossilis is exceptionally cursorial, a 465 mm ulna should give a femur of around 480 mm, matching the 484.7 mm skull. Now one can see why mass estimations vary so much, there are too many confounding variables. These two specimens were likely body size-wise just about the same as the 480 mm Ngandong femur for these reasons. Mass is a whole different rabbit hole in its own as the tiger and lion lineages hold mass differently. I have lately avoided addressing the complex topic and just give pure isometry estimates but hopefully this makes sense.
As a whole, the closer the species temporally to an extant species, the more accurate the single bone estimates and vice versa.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
The Panthera spelaea's population in France looks smaller than others, perhaps it just the population transition between Panthera fossils and Panthera spelaea?
(11-02-2018, 12:13 PM)Spalea Wrote: Thus I can easily admit that p. Atrox, cave lion and p. leo are different species... different species of lions ?
They are different species of Panthera's.
Here budy arise the philosophical question what does mean "lion"? Inside the genus Panthera there are/were many different species, all of them are more or less closely related. If you take a bunch of them- P.leo, P.fossilis and P.atrox, separate from other species like Panthera onca (jaguar), Panthera tigris (tiger), Panthera pardus and call them "lions", then you should create a separate taxonomic unit for "lions" inside genus Panthera. But since such a separate taxonomic unit does not exist its not clear what do you call "lions". Before many people called Pantheraatrox a "giant jaguar" and probably they also had some reasons for that.
P. atrox was called the "giant jaguar" at one point because a study (Christiansen and Harris 2009) found that its skull was more similar to that of the jaguar than the lion. Genetic testing shows this similarity is due to convergent evolution rather than a genetic proximity between P. atrox and P. onca.
In my opinion, three prehistoric lions(Panthera fossils, Panthera atrox, Panthera spalea) could also up to over 400kg maximum weight. But Panthera spalea's inner gap as big as tiger
(11-05-2018, 11:07 AM)Wolverine Wrote: @tigerluver , @GuateGojira probably you have heard about the famous liger Hercules, having shoulder height "only" 49 inches (125 cm) it weighted 418 kg, we could imagine what will be a weight of liger 135-140 cm tall. According other version this liger was 132 cm tall. Of course Hercules as a domestic animal was a bit overweight.
So that record P. fossilis had a skull 485 mm... I'm quite sure that it weight was half ton.
The head length is actually smaller than the skull length.
There was a renowned captive Amur tiger with a 500 mm head, but his skull was definitely less than that.
According to Dr. Gewalt, the Duisburg zoo tiger was 210 cm. in head and body (and 320 cm. in total length measured in a straight line). His head had a length of 50 cm. The captive male measured by V. Mazak in the Prague zoo had a head and body length of 220 cm. in a straight line. His head had a length of 45 cm. The skull of that male was 371 mm. in greatest total length. It's likely the Duisburg zoo tiger had a longer skull, but it was never measured.
Assuming the skull of the captive male tiger shot in the Koln zoo some years ago really was at least 410 mm. in greatest total length, it can't be excluded that exceptional captive male Amur tigers can reach a greatest skull length of 400-420 mm.
An average Late Pleistocene European male lion might have compared to the largest captive male Amur tigers today. The male found close to Siegburg (Germany) had an estimated head and body length of 210 cm. In greatest total skull length, he compared to a very large wild male Amur tiger shot in Manchuria. The skull of that tiger was measured by V. Mazak in Berlin some decades ago. Based on the skull length of some Late Pleistocene European lions, it's very likely that large males well exceeded 210 cm. in head and body length measured in a straight line.
Baryshnikov measured skulls of Amur tigers and Late Pleistocene lions found in a number of caves in the Russian Far East in the sixties and seventies of the last century. Sizewise, the tigers back then (40 000 - 50 000 years ago) more or less compared to those of today. Although not small by any means, they were outsized in all departments. This although the lions in eastern Russia were smaller than those in Europe.
Lions started losing size in the Early and Middle Pleistocene. In central and eastern parts of Russia, as well as Berengia, this process was accelerated. The most likely reason is they needed more energy to find smaller (and more agile) herbivores. Skulls of male lions found in caves in eastern Russia showed a number of 'tigerlike' treats. Could have been a result of a more solitary way of life. In the end, however, they didn't make it. Amur tigers, smaller and still more solitary, did.
After the Pleistocene lions disappeared, tigers added some inches and pounds, but my guess is they never reached the size of Pleistocene lions. In the Holocene, largely as a result of the rise of humans, tigers adapted once more. Although exceptional individuals were seen every now and then until recently, the conditions to get to their potential are gone. In southeastern Russia and northeastern China, that is. When they get more room in that region, chances are we might see a few exceptional individuals in the near future. At the moment, northern India and Nepal produce the largest wild big cats. The reason is quite a bit of room, protection and plenty of large herbivores. In Africa, for the same reasons, lions in Kruger are larger than in other regions (averages).
Although they used the same caves, it isn't known if lions and tigers co-existed in southeastern Russia 50 000 years ago. My guess is they could have. I don't think there would have been a lot of competition, if at all. Both cats most probably used different areas in a different way. Furthermore, Amur tigers were smaller than Late Pleistocene lions. My guess is they would have avoided them. Today, Amur tigers co-exist with brown bears. Although adult male tigers in particular hunt bears up to the size of adult females every now and then, male brown bears are not hunted. Male brown bears displace tigresses every now and then, but not adult male tigers. Although conflicts are not uncommon, adult males are not often involved. What we have, suggests that young adults (tigers) and desperate individuals (bears) are most likely to enter an all-out.
But bears are cleptocrats often visiting tiger kills, which will result in an increased chance to meet the owner of the kill. Pleistocene lions were hunters, meaning they most probably seldom visited kills of Amur tigers. Big cats eliminate scavengers to preserve energy. Hunting smaller competitors to protect their offspring only happens when they live in close proximity. In southeastern Russia, few leopards perish in the jaws of a tiger, but in northern India and Nepal, they live in close proximity.
Just before they disappeared Pleistocene lions might have been involved in competition with Amur tigers, but incidents most probably were few and far between. Baryshnikov didn't find anything pointing towards competition between both cats, but some bones showed that both cats might have competed with hyenas and wolves.
On the size of the eastern cave lion, Baryshnikov & Boeskorov (2001) calculated a mean weight of 194 and 154kg for male and female lions respectively, based on M1 size: https://www.zin.ru/Labs/theriology/staff...v_2001.pdf
Though Kirilova (2015) states that the Russian lions were larger than the Easter Beringian ones, but smaller than the European ones, based on the size of a single male skeleton. http://www.academia.edu/24572295/On_the_...ka_Russia_
In regards to their prey being smaller in the east, it seems to be quite the contrary - isotopic evidence suggests reindeer comprised a large amount of the diet of the European lions, though this varied by the individual (e.g. cave bear was consumed by some lions, but not others), but in Eastern Siberia and Beringia, cave lion is found to have eaten mainly bison and horse, not reindeer except during the lateglacial. In addition the diet is rather uniform compared to Europe.
11-05-2018, 10:44 PM( This post was last modified: 11-05-2018, 10:57 PM by GrizzlyClaws )
(11-05-2018, 01:43 PM)peter Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:25 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:21 AM)Wolverine Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:10 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 11:07 AM)Wolverine Wrote: @tigerluver , @GuateGojira probably you have heard about the famous liger Hercules, having shoulder height "only" 49 inches (125 cm) it weighted 418 kg, we could imagine what will be a weight of liger 135-140 cm tall. According other version this liger was 132 cm tall. Of course Hercules as a domestic animal was a bit overweight.
So that record P. fossilis had a skull 485 mm... I'm quite sure that it weight was half ton.
The head length is actually smaller than the skull length.
There was a renowned captive Amur tiger with a 500 mm head, but his skull was definitely less than that.
According to Dr. Gewalt, the Duisburg zoo tiger was 210 cm. in head and body (and 320 cm. in total length measured in a straight line). His head had a length of 50 cm. The captive male measured by V. Mazak in the Prague zoo had a head and body length of 220 cm. in a straight line. His head had a length of 45 cm. The skull of that male was 371 mm. in greatest total length. It's likely the Duisburg zoo tiger had a longer skull, but it was never measured.
Assuming the skull of the captive male tiger shot in the Koln zoo some years ago really was at least 410 mm. in greatest total length, it can't be excluded that exceptional captive male Amur tigers can reach a greatest skull length of 400-420 mm.
An average Late Pleistocene European male lion might have compared to the largest captive male Amur tigers today. The male found close to Siegburg (Germany) had an estimated head and body length of 210 cm. In greatest total skull length, he compared to a very large wild male Amur tiger shot in Manchuria. The skull of that tiger was measured by V. Mazak in Berlin some decades ago. Based on the skull length of some Late Pleistocene European lions, it's very likely that large males well exceeded 210 cm. in head and body length measured in a straight line.
Baryshnikov measured skulls of Amur tigers and Late Pleistocene lions found in a number of caves in the Russian Far East in the sixties and seventies of the last century. Sizewise, the tigers back then (40 000 - 50 000 years ago) more or less compared to those of today. Although not small by any means, they were outsized in all departments. This although the lions in eastern Russia were smaller than those in Europe.
Lions started losing size in the Early and Middle Pleistocene. In central and eastern parts of Russia, as well as Berengia, this process was accelerated. The most likely reason is they needed more energy to find smaller (and more agile) herbivores. Skulls of male lions found in caves in eastern Russia showed a number of 'tigerlike' treats. Could have been a result of a more solitary way of life. In the end, however, they didn't make it. Amur tigers, smaller and still more solitary, did.
After the Pleistocene lions disappeared, tigers added some inches and pounds, but my guess is they never reached the size of Pleistocene lions. In the Holocene, largely as a result of the rise of humans, tigers adapted once more. Although exceptional individuals were seen every now and then until recently, the conditions to get to their potential are gone. In southeastern Russia and northeastern China, that is. When they get more room in that region, chances are we might see a few exceptional individuals in the near future. At the moment, northern India and Nepal produce the largest wild big cats. The reason is quite a bit of room, protection and plenty of large herbivores. In Africa, for the same reasons, lions in Kruger are larger than in other regions (averages).
Although they used the same caves, it isn't known if lions and tigers co-existed in southeastern Russia 50 000 years ago. My guess is they could have. I don't think there would have been a lot of competition, if at all. Both cats most probably used different areas in a different way. Furthermore, Amur tigers were smaller than Late Pleistocene lions. My guess is they would have avoided them. Today, Amur tigers co-exist with brown bears. Although adult male tigers in particular hunt bears up to the size of adult females every now and then, male brown bears are not hunted. Male brown bears displace tigresses every now and then, but not adult male tigers. Although conflicts are not uncommon, adult males are not often involved. What we have, suggests that young adults (tigers) and desperate individuals (bears) are most likely to enter an all-out.
But bears are cleptocrats often visiting tiger kills, which will result in an increased chance to meet the owner of the kill. Pleistocene lions were hunters, meaning they most probably seldom visited kills of Amur tigers. Big cats eliminate scavengers to preserve energy. Hunting smaller competitors to protect their offspring only happens when they live in close proximity. In southeastern Russia, few leopards perish in the jaws of a tiger, but in northern India and Nepal, they live in close proximity.
Just before they disappeared Pleistocene lions might have been involved in competition with Amur tigers, but incidents most probably were few and far between. Baryshnikov didn't find anything pointing towards competition between both cats, but some bones showed that both cats might have competed with hyenas and wolves.
Panthera spelaea spelaea maximum up to 350 kg, comparable to the largest Manchurian tiger in the history. Both cats were highly convergent, which were accustomed to live in the taiga forest but also in the vicinity of the open grassland.
Panthera spelaea fossilis and Panthera spelaea intermedia were the larger earlier Cave lions up to 450 kg and 400 kg respectively.
From @tigerluver's collection, another Pleistocene tiger mandible with an indication of 470-480 mm skull, comparable to Panthera spelaea intermedia, but just shy of Panthera spelaea fossilis which can possibly score a 500 mm skull in the absolute maximum.
(11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Wolverine , I have not read of the released measurements for those fossils since their photos showed up years ago. However, I am certain larger P. fossilis are already on record. Let's use an ideal 200 kg lion as the isometric comparison.
The formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
Was the 192 mm MTIII specimen larger than the Chateau skull?
If we use the respective body parts of a 200 kg lion as the samples, it does appear so.
Maybe the 192 mm MTIII specimen could acquire a skull close to 500 mm which is the absolute maximum for any Panthera specimen?
The MTIII is a difficult one. One issue is that when calculating the range of weights produced by isometry, the range I found was as low as 400 kg to as high a over 500 kg. In other words, the bone is not that well correlated to body size, but is nonetheless from a top 10 Panthera specimen. The second issue is that if P. fossilis is more cursorial, the MTIII would be proportionately elongated and isometrically comparing the bone to that of an extant lion will heavily overestimate the weight. Thus extrapolating other body parts is filled with uncertainty. A skull length range of 450-500 mm would not be illogical in my opinion.
The issue can be applied to the skull. P. spelaea had a big skull for its bones, bigger than the extant lion. For instance, the specimen is Sabol (2018) has a femur to skull ratio of 0.99, which is distinctly less than extant lion generally as the number in P. leo is over 1.00. That means while applying the 484.7 mm skull to P. leo ratios, we'd think the femur would be 500 mm. Likely in reality the femur of the specimen was 470-480 mm, which is not that much bigger than the largest P. spelaea (470 mm femur from Germany mentioned by Deidrich). Of course still absurdly gigantic, but not what P. leo comparisons would lead one to believe. Another confounding issue is that long snouts usually means proportionately longer skulls for a body mass/size. We know that P. fossilis did have a longer snout that P. spelaea, likely making the long bone to skull ratio somewhat lesser in P. fossilis as compared to P. spelaea, further decreasing long bone length extrapolations by a bit. It is for this reason I feel the 465 mm has been underestimated via isometry or the 484.7 mm skull at least overestimated. Unless P. fossilis is exceptionally cursorial, a 465 mm ulna should give a femur of around 480 mm, matching the 484.7 mm skull. Now one can see why mass estimations vary so much, there are too many confounding variables. These two specimens were likely body size-wise just about the same as the 480 mm Ngandong femur for these reasons. Mass is a whole different rabbit hole in its own as the tiger and lion lineages hold mass differently. I have lately avoided addressing the complex topic and just give pure isometry estimates but hopefully this makes sense.
As a whole, the closer the species temporally to an extant species, the more accurate the single bone estimates and vice versa.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
On this issue, I have my own questions regarding Panthera spelaea.
Diedrich & Rothschild (2012) concluded that the cave lion was most likely a pursuit hunter based on bone exostoses on the brachialis muscle attachment point on two individuals, one from the Eemian and the other Weichselian, out of a considerable sample of bones (NISP=1208, MNI Unknown) indicating the use of the paw-sweep used in running, which apparently supports pursuit hunting, as opposed to extant lions which are ambush hunters:
Quote:Exostoses in Smilodon, H. crenatidens and H. latidens are found in the flexor tendons of the upper limb (Heald, 1989; McCall et al., 2003; Moodie, 1923; Shermis, 1983; Turner, 1997) and have been used as evidence for grappling behavior (Rothschild, 2011). The patterns of exostoses in P. l. spelaea have a different distribution (brachialis muscle, reflecting flexion activities), instead supporting the hypothesis of pursuit behavior. The distribution of exostoses (Fig. 7) and enthesial reaction otherwise identifies P. l. spelaea as a pursuit, rather than ambush predator.
However, Schellhorn (2014) concluded based on ulna dimensions that the cave lion bore adaptations closer to forest cats compared to the extant lion, i.e. seemed to be less cursorial, among other things.
Quote:The included fossil cats Dinofelis piveteaui, P. spelaea, and S. fatalis all distinctly plot within the closed or forest habitat in the scatter plots (Figs. 1b, 2e, f).
In this case the sample size was not impressive, only a single ulna was used in this analysis.
And as has been discussed in the literature before, e.g. Sabol (2018), the cave lion was more robustly built than the African lion, and does indeed share similarities to the tiger in some of its features, including in the limb bones.
By scaling the cats down to the same shoulder height, I compared P. atrox, P. leo, and P. spelaea skeletons to each other (left-right, the cave lion skeleton was digitally modified by a friend from an image from this article https://3dprint.com/216653/reconstructing-cave-lion/)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Looking side-by-side, P. spelaea looks somewhat similar proportionally to P. leo, but it is overall noticeably more robust. I don't know exactly what implications this would have for cursoriality, but intuitively one would think it to be a less cursorial, more ambush-oriented predator.
Indeed, assuming the hypothesis of a derivation from P. fossilis, a shortening of the cave lion's distal limbs can be inferred from @tigerluver's calculations on post #52, as we enter the late Pleistocene, which would suggest a reduction in cursoriality.
A similar situation is seen in the cave lion's main competitor, cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) which also have shortened distal limb elements, relative this time to their extant counterpart, which has also been suggested to indicate a less cursorial mode of hunting, among other things:
Quote:The crural index (tibia length/femur length) in the skeleton of Los Aprendices is 0.74, which is similar to the values of Crocuta spelaea (0.75) and Pachycrocuta brevirostris (0.74) and clearly lower than in extant C. crocuta (0.82) (Palmqvist et al., 2011). The shortening of the tibia of C. spelaea suggests a less cursorial lifestyle. Also, such shortening could provide great power and more stability to dismember and carry large parts of carcasses without dragging (Spoor, 1985; Turner and Antón, 1996; Palmqvist et al., 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...o_Zaragoza
Of course this could also be an adaptation towards the colder climate, not just in the cave hyena but the coeval cave lion as well, to reduce the size of extremities. Cave paintings have suggested that the cat had smaller ears, an inference supported by the small ears of the cub remains, as well as the shortened tail found at least in infancy, so the scenario where limbs are also shortened does not seem implausible, but apparently this would happen alongside the retention of a cursorial mode of hunting - assuming the hypotheses of a derivation from fossilis AND the inferences of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) are correct.
Some frozen finds, such as the steppe bison blue babe, suggest a similar hunting behaviour to the extant lion, though of course the duration of the chase is hard to infer in such cases:
*This image is copyright of its original author
(Multiple lions hunting Blue Babe is a bit speculative, but that's besides the point here. A great illustration by Anton, regardless).
Unfortunately I can only attach Schellhorn (2014)'s paper because WildFact won't let me attach the Diedrich paper, but I'll make a new post and attach it there.
Any thoughts on the level of cursoriality possessed by the Late Pleistocene cave lion? Particularly in regards to the hypothesis that they were pursuit hunters? The exact answer isn't clear to me, and this is the data that I can find.
Oddly, Panthera leo looks like the one with biggest skull when the shoulder height being equalized.
When it comes to the cursoriality, Panthera spealea spelaea from the late Pleistocene looks like the one with the lowest level, and it also attained a maximum weight of 300-350 kg, very reminiscent to the largest Manchurian tigers in the history. These two felines were also highly convergently evolved.
Panthera spelaea intermedia from the early late Pleistocene was even larger at 400 kg, with a higher level of cursoriality which is considered a more primitive trait and transitional phase closer to Panthera fossilis.
Panthera spelaea spelaea should be considered as the final stabilized form of the Cave lion family, looks like its ultimate goal was to evolve morphologically closer to Panthera tigris.
So what would your thoughts be on the conclusions of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) of the lion being primarily a pursuit hunter?
It depends the chronospecies of the Cave lion, I believe the latest Cave lion was more or less an ambush hunter like the Amur tiger.
(11-02-2018, 12:13 PM)Spalea Wrote: Thus I can easily admit that p. Atrox, cave lion and p. leo are different species... different species of lions ?
They are different species of Panthera's.
Here budy arise the philosophical question what does mean "lion"? Inside the genus Panthera there are/were many different species, all of them are more or less closely related. If you take a bunch of them- P.leo, P.fossilis and P.atrox, separate from other species like Panthera onca (jaguar), Panthera tigris (tiger), Panthera pardus and call them "lions", then you should create a separate taxonomic unit for "lions" inside genus Panthera. But since such a separate taxonomic unit does not exist its not clear what do you call "lions". Before many people called Pantheraatrox a "giant jaguar" and probably they also had some reasons for that.
P. atrox was called the "giant jaguar" at one point because a study (Christiansen and Harris 2009) found that its skull was more similar to that of the jaguar than the lion. Genetic testing shows this similarity is due to convergent evolution rather than a genetic proximity between P. atrox and P. onca.
In my opinion, three prehistoric lions(Panthera fossils, Panthera atrox, Panthera spalea) could also up to over 400kg maximum weight. But Panthera spalea's inner gap as big as tiger
Panthera spelaea up to 400 kg should be the earlier one in between the transitional phase of Panthera spelaea fossilis and Panthera spelaea spelaea.
Panthera spelaea spelaea was the final stabilized form of the Cave lion, and this chronospecies was 350 kg maximum, comparable to the largest Amur tiger in the history.
About #241: I find your posts exciting (perhaps not the word I would use at first sight, but from the dictionnary it seems to be the good one). I find fascinating to take a space into 4 dimensions (the Earth through the time), to consider which species could be competing at a given time or at least which species could share a given environment at a particular time as you do with, for exemple, the Pleistocene lions with the Amur tigers. To also notice that cave lions could be a ferocious ennemy of the cave bear, or same thing with the American lion towards the grizzly and the short-faced bear. Without forgeting the Pleistocene hyenas and wolves with the lions and tigers. The multiple combinations allow to imagine all kinds of encounter. Really fascinating !
To notice that at a given time the bears were the perfect the top predators (arctodus simus), and after in North America, the grizzly bears after having spent a long difficult period (the Pleistocene) became the top predator of the North America whereas the bears in Siberia are still confronted to the tigers, and so on...
Now, in our present time, numerous animal species have disappeared as well as some (sometimes intense) rivalries. Candidly I am asking to myself if something of the spirit of these ancient rivalries have subsisted till the present days. I remember having read in some of your previous posts how ferocious and intense could be the animosity between the tigers and the bears within some zoos. Much more ferocious, I had this impression, than between the lions and tigers for exemple.
(11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Wolverine , I have not read of the released measurements for those fossils since their photos showed up years ago. However, I am certain larger P. fossilis are already on record. Let's use an ideal 200 kg lion as the isometric comparison.
The formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
Was the 192 mm MTIII specimen larger than the Chateau skull?
If we use the respective body parts of a 200 kg lion as the samples, it does appear so.
Maybe the 192 mm MTIII specimen could acquire a skull close to 500 mm which is the absolute maximum for any Panthera specimen?
The MTIII is a difficult one. One issue is that when calculating the range of weights produced by isometry, the range I found was as low as 400 kg to as high a over 500 kg. In other words, the bone is not that well correlated to body size, but is nonetheless from a top 10 Panthera specimen. The second issue is that if P. fossilis is more cursorial, the MTIII would be proportionately elongated and isometrically comparing the bone to that of an extant lion will heavily overestimate the weight. Thus extrapolating other body parts is filled with uncertainty. A skull length range of 450-500 mm would not be illogical in my opinion.
The issue can be applied to the skull. P. spelaea had a big skull for its bones, bigger than the extant lion. For instance, the specimen is Sabol (2018) has a femur to skull ratio of 0.99, which is distinctly less than extant lion generally as the number in P. leo is over 1.00. That means while applying the 484.7 mm skull to P. leo ratios, we'd think the femur would be 500 mm. Likely in reality the femur of the specimen was 470-480 mm, which is not that much bigger than the largest P. spelaea (470 mm femur from Germany mentioned by Deidrich). Of course still absurdly gigantic, but not what P. leo comparisons would lead one to believe. Another confounding issue is that long snouts usually means proportionately longer skulls for a body mass/size. We know that P. fossilis did have a longer snout that P. spelaea, likely making the long bone to skull ratio somewhat lesser in P. fossilis as compared to P. spelaea, further decreasing long bone length extrapolations by a bit. It is for this reason I feel the 465 mm has been underestimated via isometry or the 484.7 mm skull at least overestimated. Unless P. fossilis is exceptionally cursorial, a 465 mm ulna should give a femur of around 480 mm, matching the 484.7 mm skull. Now one can see why mass estimations vary so much, there are too many confounding variables. These two specimens were likely body size-wise just about the same as the 480 mm Ngandong femur for these reasons. Mass is a whole different rabbit hole in its own as the tiger and lion lineages hold mass differently. I have lately avoided addressing the complex topic and just give pure isometry estimates but hopefully this makes sense.
As a whole, the closer the species temporally to an extant species, the more accurate the single bone estimates and vice versa.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
On this issue, I have my own questions regarding Panthera spelaea.
Diedrich & Rothschild (2012) concluded that the cave lion was most likely a pursuit hunter based on bone exostoses on the brachialis muscle attachment point on two individuals, one from the Eemian and the other Weichselian, out of a considerable sample of bones (NISP=1208, MNI Unknown) indicating the use of the paw-sweep used in running, which apparently supports pursuit hunting, as opposed to extant lions which are ambush hunters:
Quote:Exostoses in Smilodon, H. crenatidens and H. latidens are found in the flexor tendons of the upper limb (Heald, 1989; McCall et al., 2003; Moodie, 1923; Shermis, 1983; Turner, 1997) and have been used as evidence for grappling behavior (Rothschild, 2011). The patterns of exostoses in P. l. spelaea have a different distribution (brachialis muscle, reflecting flexion activities), instead supporting the hypothesis of pursuit behavior. The distribution of exostoses (Fig. 7) and enthesial reaction otherwise identifies P. l. spelaea as a pursuit, rather than ambush predator.
However, Schellhorn (2014) concluded based on ulna dimensions that the cave lion bore adaptations closer to forest cats compared to the extant lion, i.e. seemed to be less cursorial, among other things.
Quote:The included fossil cats Dinofelis piveteaui, P. spelaea, and S. fatalis all distinctly plot within the closed or forest habitat in the scatter plots (Figs. 1b, 2e, f).
In this case the sample size was not impressive, only a single ulna was used in this analysis.
And as has been discussed in the literature before, e.g. Sabol (2018), the cave lion was more robustly built than the African lion, and does indeed share similarities to the tiger in some of its features, including in the limb bones.
By scaling the cats down to the same shoulder height, I compared P. atrox, P. leo, and P. spelaea skeletons to each other (left-right, the cave lion skeleton was digitally modified by a friend from an image from this article https://3dprint.com/216653/reconstructing-cave-lion/)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Looking side-by-side, P. spelaea looks somewhat similar proportionally to P. leo, but it is overall noticeably more robust. I don't know exactly what implications this would have for cursoriality, but intuitively one would think it to be a less cursorial, more ambush-oriented predator.
Indeed, assuming the hypothesis of a derivation from P. fossilis, a shortening of the cave lion's distal limbs can be inferred from @tigerluver's calculations on post #52, as we enter the late Pleistocene, which would suggest a reduction in cursoriality.
A similar situation is seen in the cave lion's main competitor, cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) which also have shortened distal limb elements, relative this time to their extant counterpart, which has also been suggested to indicate a less cursorial mode of hunting, among other things:
Quote:The crural index (tibia length/femur length) in the skeleton of Los Aprendices is 0.74, which is similar to the values of Crocuta spelaea (0.75) and Pachycrocuta brevirostris (0.74) and clearly lower than in extant C. crocuta (0.82) (Palmqvist et al., 2011). The shortening of the tibia of C. spelaea suggests a less cursorial lifestyle. Also, such shortening could provide great power and more stability to dismember and carry large parts of carcasses without dragging (Spoor, 1985; Turner and Antón, 1996; Palmqvist et al., 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...o_Zaragoza
Of course this could also be an adaptation towards the colder climate, not just in the cave hyena but the coeval cave lion as well, to reduce the size of extremities. Cave paintings have suggested that the cat had smaller ears, an inference supported by the small ears of the cub remains, as well as the shortened tail found at least in infancy, so the scenario where limbs are also shortened does not seem implausible, but apparently this would happen alongside the retention of a cursorial mode of hunting - assuming the hypotheses of a derivation from fossilis AND the inferences of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) are correct.
Some frozen finds, such as the steppe bison blue babe, suggest a similar hunting behaviour to the extant lion, though of course the duration of the chase is hard to infer in such cases:
*This image is copyright of its original author
(Multiple lions hunting Blue Babe is a bit speculative, but that's besides the point here. A great illustration by Anton, regardless).
Unfortunately I can only attach Schellhorn (2014)'s paper because WildFact won't let me attach the Diedrich paper, but I'll make a new post and attach it there.
Any thoughts on the level of cursoriality possessed by the Late Pleistocene cave lion? Particularly in regards to the hypothesis that they were pursuit hunters? The exact answer isn't clear to me, and this is the data that I can find.
Oddly, Panthera leo looks like the one with biggest skull when the shoulder height being equalized.
When it comes to the cursoriality, Panthera spealea spelaea from the late Pleistocene looks like the one with the lowest level, and it also attained a maximum weight of 300-350 kg, very reminiscent to the largest Manchurian tigers in the history. These two felines were also highly convergently evolved.
Panthera spelaea intermedia from the early late Pleistocene was even larger at 400 kg, with a higher level of cursoriality which is considered a more primitive trait and transitional phase closer to Panthera fossilis.
Panthera spelaea spelaea should be considered as the final stabilized form of the Cave lion family, looks like its ultimate goal was to evolve morphologically closer to Panthera tigris.
So what would your thoughts be on the conclusions of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) of the lion being primarily a pursuit hunter?
It depends the chronospecies of the Cave lion, I believe the latest Cave lion was more or less an ambush hunter like the Amur tiger.
I was referring to the latest one, yes, the one which he studied. Based on pathologies he concluded that pursuit predation was their mode of hunting.
I think back 2012, all studies about the Cave lion were not as elaborate as we have now.
I do remember back in that time, everything was quite fuzzy and based on the retro concepts. They still considered Cave lion as a subspecies of the African lion.
So based on the modern concept, I think the latest form was definitely morphologically closer to Panthera tigris, also smaller than the previous forms.
11-06-2018, 02:11 AM( This post was last modified: 11-06-2018, 02:25 AM by Shadow )
(11-06-2018, 01:46 AM)Ghari Sher Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 10:59 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 08:13 PM)Ghari Sher Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 10:50 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-04-2018, 11:40 PM)Ghari Sher Wrote:
(11-04-2018, 12:00 PM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-04-2018, 11:21 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-04-2018, 10:44 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:
(11-04-2018, 12:25 AM)tigerluver Wrote: @Wolverine , I have not read of the released measurements for those fossils since their photos showed up years ago. However, I am certain larger P. fossilis are already on record. Let's use an ideal 200 kg lion as the isometric comparison.
The formula is:
Mass (fossil) = (Measurement of fossil)/(Measurement of extant specimen)^3 * Mass of the extant specimen.
Firstly, the 484.7 mm Chateau skull (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg modern lion could have a skull about 380 mm long. Applying these numbers to the aforementioned formula results in a mass of 415 kg.
Next, the 465 mm ulna (Reichenau 1908). A 200 kg lion could have an ulna about 385 mm long. Calculate... this P. fossilis weighed 352 kg.
Finally, the giant 192 mm MTIII (Marciszak et al. 2014). A 200 kg lion could have an MTIII of 145 mm. Calculate... a whopping 464 kg. Perhaps this is somewhat of an overestimate if P. fossilis was even longer limb-wise than the modern lion, but we have no skeletons to support this assumption other than the fact that its descendant, P. atrox, was indeed proportionally longer limb-wise. Moreover, MTIIIs vary a lot between individuals in relation to body size/mass. Nonetheless, the specimen was likely no less than 400 kg.
Both the MTIII and ulna can be confounded by an increased cursoriality in P. fossilis but the former much more so. The elongated skull of P. fossilis can also confound the isometric comparison to a degree.
From the scant fossil record, it is quite apparent P. fossilis consistently produced what would be giants by modern standards. For instance, many of the fragmented mandibles were likely from skulls that exceeded 400 mm. By probability and comparison of samples, P. fossilis was likely larger than P. atrox as well. The excessively large long bones of P. fossilis also hint that 130-140 cm at the shoulder would be comfortably attained by some of the largest specimens.
@epaiva I will post some photos soon, sorry about the wait.
Was the 192 mm MTIII specimen larger than the Chateau skull?
If we use the respective body parts of a 200 kg lion as the samples, it does appear so.
Maybe the 192 mm MTIII specimen could acquire a skull close to 500 mm which is the absolute maximum for any Panthera specimen?
The MTIII is a difficult one. One issue is that when calculating the range of weights produced by isometry, the range I found was as low as 400 kg to as high a over 500 kg. In other words, the bone is not that well correlated to body size, but is nonetheless from a top 10 Panthera specimen. The second issue is that if P. fossilis is more cursorial, the MTIII would be proportionately elongated and isometrically comparing the bone to that of an extant lion will heavily overestimate the weight. Thus extrapolating other body parts is filled with uncertainty. A skull length range of 450-500 mm would not be illogical in my opinion.
The issue can be applied to the skull. P. spelaea had a big skull for its bones, bigger than the extant lion. For instance, the specimen is Sabol (2018) has a femur to skull ratio of 0.99, which is distinctly less than extant lion generally as the number in P. leo is over 1.00. That means while applying the 484.7 mm skull to P. leo ratios, we'd think the femur would be 500 mm. Likely in reality the femur of the specimen was 470-480 mm, which is not that much bigger than the largest P. spelaea (470 mm femur from Germany mentioned by Deidrich). Of course still absurdly gigantic, but not what P. leo comparisons would lead one to believe. Another confounding issue is that long snouts usually means proportionately longer skulls for a body mass/size. We know that P. fossilis did have a longer snout that P. spelaea, likely making the long bone to skull ratio somewhat lesser in P. fossilis as compared to P. spelaea, further decreasing long bone length extrapolations by a bit. It is for this reason I feel the 465 mm has been underestimated via isometry or the 484.7 mm skull at least overestimated. Unless P. fossilis is exceptionally cursorial, a 465 mm ulna should give a femur of around 480 mm, matching the 484.7 mm skull. Now one can see why mass estimations vary so much, there are too many confounding variables. These two specimens were likely body size-wise just about the same as the 480 mm Ngandong femur for these reasons. Mass is a whole different rabbit hole in its own as the tiger and lion lineages hold mass differently. I have lately avoided addressing the complex topic and just give pure isometry estimates but hopefully this makes sense.
As a whole, the closer the species temporally to an extant species, the more accurate the single bone estimates and vice versa.
As for the rank of the cursoriality for the Pleistocene pantherine cats, it could be something like that?
On this issue, I have my own questions regarding Panthera spelaea.
Diedrich & Rothschild (2012) concluded that the cave lion was most likely a pursuit hunter based on bone exostoses on the brachialis muscle attachment point on two individuals, one from the Eemian and the other Weichselian, out of a considerable sample of bones (NISP=1208, MNI Unknown) indicating the use of the paw-sweep used in running, which apparently supports pursuit hunting, as opposed to extant lions which are ambush hunters:
Quote:Exostoses in Smilodon, H. crenatidens and H. latidens are found in the flexor tendons of the upper limb (Heald, 1989; McCall et al., 2003; Moodie, 1923; Shermis, 1983; Turner, 1997) and have been used as evidence for grappling behavior (Rothschild, 2011). The patterns of exostoses in P. l. spelaea have a different distribution (brachialis muscle, reflecting flexion activities), instead supporting the hypothesis of pursuit behavior. The distribution of exostoses (Fig. 7) and enthesial reaction otherwise identifies P. l. spelaea as a pursuit, rather than ambush predator.
However, Schellhorn (2014) concluded based on ulna dimensions that the cave lion bore adaptations closer to forest cats compared to the extant lion, i.e. seemed to be less cursorial, among other things.
Quote:The included fossil cats Dinofelis piveteaui, P. spelaea, and S. fatalis all distinctly plot within the closed or forest habitat in the scatter plots (Figs. 1b, 2e, f).
In this case the sample size was not impressive, only a single ulna was used in this analysis.
And as has been discussed in the literature before, e.g. Sabol (2018), the cave lion was more robustly built than the African lion, and does indeed share similarities to the tiger in some of its features, including in the limb bones.
By scaling the cats down to the same shoulder height, I compared P. atrox, P. leo, and P. spelaea skeletons to each other (left-right, the cave lion skeleton was digitally modified by a friend from an image from this article https://3dprint.com/216653/reconstructing-cave-lion/)
*This image is copyright of its original author
Looking side-by-side, P. spelaea looks somewhat similar proportionally to P. leo, but it is overall noticeably more robust. I don't know exactly what implications this would have for cursoriality, but intuitively one would think it to be a less cursorial, more ambush-oriented predator.
Indeed, assuming the hypothesis of a derivation from P. fossilis, a shortening of the cave lion's distal limbs can be inferred from @tigerluver's calculations on post #52, as we enter the late Pleistocene, which would suggest a reduction in cursoriality.
A similar situation is seen in the cave lion's main competitor, cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) which also have shortened distal limb elements, relative this time to their extant counterpart, which has also been suggested to indicate a less cursorial mode of hunting, among other things:
Quote:The crural index (tibia length/femur length) in the skeleton of Los Aprendices is 0.74, which is similar to the values of Crocuta spelaea (0.75) and Pachycrocuta brevirostris (0.74) and clearly lower than in extant C. crocuta (0.82) (Palmqvist et al., 2011). The shortening of the tibia of C. spelaea suggests a less cursorial lifestyle. Also, such shortening could provide great power and more stability to dismember and carry large parts of carcasses without dragging (Spoor, 1985; Turner and Antón, 1996; Palmqvist et al., 2011).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...o_Zaragoza
Of course this could also be an adaptation towards the colder climate, not just in the cave hyena but the coeval cave lion as well, to reduce the size of extremities. Cave paintings have suggested that the cat had smaller ears, an inference supported by the small ears of the cub remains, as well as the shortened tail found at least in infancy, so the scenario where limbs are also shortened does not seem implausible, but apparently this would happen alongside the retention of a cursorial mode of hunting - assuming the hypotheses of a derivation from fossilis AND the inferences of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) are correct.
Some frozen finds, such as the steppe bison blue babe, suggest a similar hunting behaviour to the extant lion, though of course the duration of the chase is hard to infer in such cases:
*This image is copyright of its original author
(Multiple lions hunting Blue Babe is a bit speculative, but that's besides the point here. A great illustration by Anton, regardless).
Unfortunately I can only attach Schellhorn (2014)'s paper because WildFact won't let me attach the Diedrich paper, but I'll make a new post and attach it there.
Any thoughts on the level of cursoriality possessed by the Late Pleistocene cave lion? Particularly in regards to the hypothesis that they were pursuit hunters? The exact answer isn't clear to me, and this is the data that I can find.
Oddly, Panthera leo looks like the one with biggest skull when the shoulder height being equalized.
When it comes to the cursoriality, Panthera spealea spelaea from the late Pleistocene looks like the one with the lowest level, and it also attained a maximum weight of 300-350 kg, very reminiscent to the largest Manchurian tigers in the history. These two felines were also highly convergently evolved.
Panthera spelaea intermedia from the early late Pleistocene was even larger at 400 kg, with a higher level of cursoriality which is considered a more primitive trait and transitional phase closer to Panthera fossilis.
Panthera spelaea spelaea should be considered as the final stabilized form of the Cave lion family, looks like its ultimate goal was to evolve morphologically closer to Panthera tigris.
So what would your thoughts be on the conclusions of Rothschild & Diedrich (2012) of the lion being primarily a pursuit hunter?
It depends the chronospecies of the Cave lion, I believe the latest Cave lion was more or less an ambush hunter like the Amur tiger.
I was referring to the latest one, yes, the one which he studied. Based on pathologies he concluded that pursuit predation was their mode of hunting.
I had to check, that what is meant with ambush hunter and pursuit hunter, because I found claim, that cave lion would be pursuit hunter and lion ambush hunter in a way very odd. All big cats still are hunting in very same way. Sneaking close to prey or sometimes waiting that prey comes closer depending on situation. Then making attack and a shorter or longer pursue, but never a very long, up to what cheetah does. About 400 meters. It looks like all these big cats are in pursuit hunter category and none ambush hunter. Even though they hunt also ambushing if opportunity comes.
Then we have ambush hunters like snakes etc. And then persistence hunters like African wild dogs etc. Maybe wolves somewhere in the middle of pursuit hunting and persistence hunting.
But thinking a big cat running long distance, extant or extinct... when even cheetah can´t pursue long distances and we know perfectly well, that lions pursue many times prey some (short) distances. Also tigers do short pursuits when needed and chance to get prey in that way. That research is just telling no-brainer, nothing more or less. Sometimes researchers really are making nice reports about very clear things :) Like I would make a long report how water is wet : My personal opinion is, that trying to divide lion as ambush predator and cave lion pursuit predator is making no sense. I respect researchers a lot, but sometimes..... ; Maybe I missed some point here?
The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)
My personal opinion is, that trying to divide lion as ambush predator and cave lion pursuit predator is making no sense. I respect researchers a lot, but sometimes..... ;
Maybe I missed some point here?
