The Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea and Panthera fossilis)

[tigerluver]

Perhaps the Natodomeri lion was in the transitional phase as the mane continued to thicken to what we see today. Perhaps this giant was fully maned. The cave lion had split off the lineage around 2 mya, so there was a lot of time for the mane to take its time to evolve at the speed of natural selection.

Reread Barnett et al. (2016), I remembered we haven't yet discussed reclassifying P. fossilis. If P. spealea's split happened before the earliest P. fossilis, would you be inclined to believe that P. fossilis would be more accurately considered a chronospecies of the cave lion lineage and thus be P. spelaea fossilis? Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

@tigerluver

Panthera atrox does look like a chronospecies that derived from Panthera fossilis.

However, the relationship between Panthera fossilis and Panthera spelaea still looks unclear. Maybe Barnett et al. (2016) did prove that the entire Cave lion stem group (including fossilis/atrox/spelaea), but not Panthera spelaea itself as the paleospecies that directly diverged with the modern lion stem group.

It looks like that fossilis/atrox/spelaea did derive from an unknown paleospecies that diverged 2 mya from the modern lion stem group.

Also, by judging the timeline, the recently discovered Pleistocene African lions should definitely be included in the modern lion stem group as well, perhaps a paleosubspecies of Panthera leo that eventually gave the birth to both Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita. Reply

[Wolverine]

(11-15-2017, 09:33 PM)tigerluver Wrote: largest skulls of P. atrox most are aware of (458 mm) and a bit smaller than the giant Mokhnevskaya P. fossilis skull (475 mm) and University of California giant P. atrox skull (467.5 mm).

Is this skull of P.fossilis from Mokhnevskaya the largest ever discovered skull of cat from genus Panthera? Could be assumed that this specimen from Mokhnevskaya is the largest Pantherinae known to the science till this moment?

According to Bergmann's rule within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder and northern environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer and southern regions. From all ancient representatives of genus Panthera representatives of P.fossilis inhabited most northern latitudes of the Earth - Siberia and Alaska, hence P. fossilis logically should be larger than P.atrox, P.tigris soloensis and P. tigris acutidiens. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(11-16-2017, 09:44 AM)Wolverine Wrote:

(11-15-2017, 09:33 PM)tigerluver Wrote: largest skulls of P. atrox most are aware of (458 mm) and a bit smaller than the giant Mokhnevskaya P. fossilis skull (475 mm) and University of California giant P. atrox skull (467.5 mm).

Is this skull of P.fossilis from Mokhnevskaya the largest ever discovered skull of cat from genus Panthera? Could be assumed that this specimen from Mokhnevskaya is the largest Pantherinae known to the science till this moment?

According to Bergmann's rule within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder and northern environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer and southern regions. From all ancient representatives of genus Panthera representatives of P.fossilis inhabited most northern latitudes of the Earth - Siberia and Alaska, hence P. fossilis logically should be larger than P.atrox, P.tigris soloensis and P. tigris acutidiens.

The largest Panthera fossilis skull was the one found in Chateau France at 484.7 mm, the Mokhnevskaya Cave one at 475 mm should belong as the second largest Panthera fossilis skull.

And France is not particularly northern in latitude, and the largest feline skull ever was found there. Reply

[Wolverine]

(11-16-2017, 09:54 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-16-2017, 09:44 AM)Wolverine Wrote:

(11-15-2017, 09:33 PM)tigerluver Wrote: largest skulls of P. atrox most are aware of (458 mm) and a bit smaller than the giant Mokhnevskaya P. fossilis skull (475 mm) and University of California giant P. atrox skull (467.5 mm).

Is this skull of P.fossilis from Mokhnevskaya the largest ever discovered skull of cat from genus Panthera? Could be assumed that this specimen from Mokhnevskaya is the largest Pantherinae known to the science till this moment?

According to Bergmann's rule within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder and northern environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer and southern regions. From all ancient representatives of genus Panthera representatives of P.fossilis inhabited most northern latitudes of the Earth - Siberia and Alaska, hence P. fossilis logically should be larger than P.atrox, P.tigris soloensis and P. tigris acutidiens.

The largest Panthera fossilis skull was the one found in Chateau France at 484.7 mm, the Mokhnevskaya Cave one at 475 mm should belong as the second largest Panthera fossilis skull.

And France is not particularly northern in latitude, and the largest feline skull ever was found there.

Thank you! Reply

[Wolverine]

(11-14-2017, 07:13 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Frozen Remains of Extinct Lion Found in Russia

Having this frozen cave lion cub could we know finally determine with certainty was the cave lion only subspecie of Panthera leo or it was completely different specie of genus Panthera?

The discovery of this frozen cave lion is a real achievement and wonder of the paleontology! In Siberian tundra probably there are thousands more frozen big animals - mammoths, rhinos and cave lions from Ice Age who are waiting to be discovered in the future by the science. I could imagine what is the feeling of a paleontologist digging frozen lion, probably same as the discovery of the Tutankhamun's mummy in Egypt. Reply

[Polar]

(11-16-2017, 09:44 AM)Wolverine Wrote:

(11-15-2017, 09:33 PM)tigerluver Wrote: largest skulls of P. atrox most are aware of (458 mm) and a bit smaller than the giant Mokhnevskaya P. fossilis skull (475 mm) and University of California giant P. atrox skull (467.5 mm).

Is this skull of P.fossilis from Mokhnevskaya the largest ever discovered skull of cat from genus Panthera? Could be assumed that this specimen from Mokhnevskaya is the largest Pantherinae known to the science till this moment?

According to Bergmann's rule within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder and northern environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer and southern regions. From all ancient representatives of genus Panthera representatives of P.fossilis inhabited most northern latitudes of the Earth - Siberia and Alaska, hence P. fossilis logically should be larger than P.atrox, P.tigris soloensis and P. tigris acutidiens.

That would only be true if the genetic size difference between lions and tigers were similar; not saying it is completely false though. The American Lion grew up to be 650-pounds on average, the Ngandong Tiger 650 to 700-pounds on average, and Panthera Fossilis maybe in between, on average. There is a lot more that goes on than simply the difference of climates.

Hereditary genes also make a big difference. Humans, coming from the same Pleistocene lineage, grew similarly thicker when they went up north and skinnier when migrating south; however, tigers and lions grew from two completely different lineages in the same genus under different conditions. I think tigers (and I am saying this with no absolute proof) have the potential to be a much larger size than lions on both average and maximum due to their in-built genetics. Throughout their lineage, most tiger species seemed to be consistently smaller than the lions on average, but the exceptional tiger species were much larger than the exceptional lion ones. So if @GrizzlyClaws or @tigerluver can back me up or prove me otherwise, then the statement can be true. Reply

[epaiva]

Credits to @_quagga with pictures 1 and 2 and @taxidermybox with picture 3

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

@tigerluver @GrizzlyClaws
I have been trying to find pictures of Panthera fossilis skulls with out luck, do you have pictures of Panthera fossilis skulls? Reply

[Wolverine]

(11-19-2017, 12:46 AM)Polar Wrote:

(11-16-2017, 09:44 AM)Wolverine Wrote:

(11-15-2017, 09:33 PM)tigerluver Wrote: largest skulls of P. atrox most are aware of (458 mm) and a bit smaller than the giant Mokhnevskaya P. fossilis skull (475 mm) and University of California giant P. atrox skull (467.5 mm).

Is this skull of P.fossilis from Mokhnevskaya the largest ever discovered skull of cat from genus Panthera? Could be assumed that this specimen from Mokhnevskaya is the largest Pantherinae known to the science till this moment?

According to Bergmann's rule within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder and northern environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer and southern regions. From all ancient representatives of genus Panthera representatives of P.fossilis inhabited most northern latitudes of the Earth - Siberia and Alaska, hence P. fossilis logically should be larger than P.atrox, P.tigris soloensis and P. tigris acutidiens.

The American Lion grew up to be 650-pounds on average, the Ngandong Tiger 650 to 700-pounds on average, and Panthera Fossilis maybe in between, on average. 
I think tigers (and I am saying this with no absolute proof) have the potential to be a much larger size than lions on both average and maximum due to their in-built genetics.

From what source did you get 650 lbs average for P. atrox? I know that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but there is written that the average weight of P.atrox was 564 lbs (256 kg) and that he is was 25% larger than modern African lion (180-190 kg). What are the measurments of the largest skull of American lion? I have an impression that National Geographic and other channels exaggerate a bit the size and ferocity of American lion.....
P. tigris soloensis was as long as I know more gracial than cave lions with more thin bones.

Maybe modern tigers are larger than modern lions because there are no more NORTHERN lions. Yes I agree that Bergman's rule  is not the only factor, the abundance of food is even more important, but nevertheless this rule is a scientific law. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(11-19-2017, 05:19 AM)epaiva Wrote: Credits to @_quagga with pictures 1 and  2 and @taxidermybox with picture 3

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

@tigerluver @GrizzlyClaws
I have been trying to find pictures of Panthera fossilis skulls with out luck, do you have pictures of Panthera fossilis skulls?

Maybe this one?

http://paleorestavration.com/Project.html Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(11-19-2017, 12:46 AM)Polar Wrote: That would only be true if the genetic size difference between lions and tigers were similar; not saying it is completely false though. The American Lion grew up to be 650-pounds on average, the Ngandong Tiger 650 to 700-pounds on average, and Panthera Fossilis maybe in between, on average. There is a lot more that goes on than simply the difference of climates.

Hereditary genes also make a big difference. Humans, coming from the same Pleistocene lineage, grew similarly thicker when they went up north and skinnier when migrating south; however, tigers and lions grew from two completely different lineages in the same genus under different conditions. I think tigers (and I am saying this with no absolute proof) have the potential to be a much larger size than lions on both average and maximum due to their in-built genetics. Throughout their lineage, most tiger species seemed to be consistently smaller than the lions on average, but the exceptional tiger species were much larger than the exceptional lion ones. So if @GrizzlyClaws or @tigerluver can back me up or prove me otherwise, then the statement can be true.

Well, intuitively, which one got more robusticity in your opinition?

Here this is the prime for both Cave lion and Amur tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Polar]

(11-19-2017, 07:55 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:

(11-19-2017, 12:46 AM)Polar Wrote: That would only be true if the genetic size difference between lions and tigers were similar; not saying it is completely false though. The American Lion grew up to be 650-pounds on average, the Ngandong Tiger 650 to 700-pounds on average, and Panthera Fossilis maybe in between, on average. There is a lot more that goes on than simply the difference of climates.

Hereditary genes also make a big difference. Humans, coming from the same Pleistocene lineage, grew similarly thicker when they went up north and skinnier when migrating south; however, tigers and lions grew from two completely different lineages in the same genus under different conditions. I think tigers (and I am saying this with no absolute proof) have the potential to be a much larger size than lions on both average and maximum due to their in-built genetics. Throughout their lineage, most tiger species seemed to be consistently smaller than the lions on average, but the exceptional tiger species were much larger than the exceptional lion ones. So if @GrizzlyClaws or @tigerluver can back me up or prove me otherwise, then the statement can be true.

Well, intuitively, which one got more robusticity in your opinition?

Here this is the prime for both Cave lion and Amur tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Tigers are usually a bit more robust, especially the ones from the Sunda region (the hotter region). Bergmann's rule also dictates that animals also become wider for their length (more robust) as temperatures get colder in order to conserve body heat by limiting body size relative to height. However, the more robust tigers actually occured within the Sunda region and, now, the Kaziranga and Nepal regions (which are actually colder). Most lions, even the more robust ones, don't seem to match the skeletal robustness of the prehistoric tigers or even modern ones.

However, robustness doesn't indicate possible maximum size. Brown bears are quite robust for their size, at least compared to polar and black bears, yet polar bears have the ability to genetically achieve sizes that brown bears can not and black bears the opposite. Even if an animal species is more robust than the other, it doesn't indicate whether its potential for growth is greater than the less robust animal. Even though the tiger is normally more robust, I still think the tiger has greater genetic potential for a greater average and exceptional size based on the prehistoric specimens and skulls. Reply

[Wolverine]

When we make size comparisons between Cave lions (P.fossilis and Pspelaea) and American lion, probably there are too scenarios:

1. IF two carnivores  from same clade enjoy SIMILAR abundance of food, SIMILAR prey base, the carnivore inhabiting Northern and colder latitudes will grow larger,more massive.

2 IF the carnivore inhabiting more Southern and warmer latitudes enjoys MORE abundant food resources, MORE prey base than the carnivore from same clade inhabiting to the North due to scarcity of prey in that northern region than the case is getting a bit more complicated, but probably too animals would be similar in size, as now we can see from Bengal and Siberian tigers, which are roughy equal in size. Bengal has in his side great abundance of food, Amur - Bergman's rule.

In other words Cave lions (fossilis and spelaea) who had inhabited subarctic regions of the Earth - Siberia, Alaska, Beringia could be or larger or same in size to P.atrox, who inhabited continental United States but they cant be smaller then him. No way. To rich compromise we probably could state that Cave lions and American lion are roughly equal in size. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(11-19-2017, 09:16 AM)Polar Wrote: Tigers are usually a bit more robust, especially the ones from the Sunda region (the hotter region). Bergmann's rule also dictates that animals also become wider for their length (more robust) as temperatures get colder in order to conserve body heat by limiting body size relative to height. However, the more robust tigers actually occured within the Sunda region and, now, the Kaziranga and Nepal regions (which are actually colder). Most lions, even the more robust ones, don't seem to match the skeletal robustness of the prehistoric tigers or even modern ones.

However, robustness doesn't indicate possible maximum size. Brown bears are quite robust for their size, at least compared to polar and black bears, yet polar bears have the ability to genetically achieve sizes that brown bears can not and black bears the opposite. Even if an animal species is more robust than the other, it doesn't indicate whether its potential for growth is greater than the less robust animal. Even though the tiger is normally more robust, I still think the tiger has greater genetic potential for a greater average and exceptional size based on the prehistoric specimens and skulls.

The modern Amur tigers have suffered the genetic depression, hence they are not the ideal candidate to apply for the Bergmann's rule.

Although the prehistoric Sunda tigers were showing the impressive robusticity according to @tigerluver, but their skull is always showing the narrower features compared to the prehistoric tigers in the northern latitude.

The modern Amur tigers with the genetic depression is also proceeding under the radical gracilization, their skull are becoming less broad and vaulted in proportion, it is even becoming less robust compared to the Bengal tiger's. Reply

[GrizzlyClaws]

(11-19-2017, 09:20 AM)Wolverine Wrote: When we make size comparisons between Cave lions (P.fossilis and Pspelaea) and American lion, probably there are too scenarios:

1. IF two carnivores  from same clade enjoy SIMILAR abundance of food, SIMILAR prey base, the carnivore inhabiting Northern and colder latitudes will grow larger,more massive.

2 IF the carnivore inhabiting more Southern and warmer latitudes enjoys MORE abundant food resources, MORE prey base than the carnivore from same clade inhabiting to the North due to scarcity of prey in that northern region than the case is getting a bit more complicated, but probably too animals would be similar in size, as now we can see from Bengal and Siberian tigers, which are roughy equal in size. Bengal has in his side great abundance of food, Amur - Bergman's rule.

In other words Cave lions (fossilis and spelaea) who had inhabited subarctic regions of the Earth - Siberia, Alaska, Beringia could be or larger or same in size to P.atrox, who inhabited continental United States but they cant be smaller then him. No way. To rich compromise we probably could state that Cave lions and American lion are roughly equal in size.

Right now based on the fossils, fossilis came out expectedly as the largest, then followed by atrox, and spelaea as the smallest out of the three.

I think it has to do with the prey available, since spelaea thrived in the show quite late in time, and the late Pleistocene was also much colder compared to the middle Pleistocene, hence the prey availability was also possibly more scarce, that's why spelaea must have missed a lot of potential to grow even bigger. Reply