The simbakubwa, a giant Miocene lion.

[Shadow]

(04-20-2019, 02:40 PM)Arctotherium Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 02:38 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 02:23 PM)Arctotherium Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:24 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:09 PM)Arctotherium Wrote: Interesting.Thanks for info.But I think this is not a lion.

Did you read other postings in this thread or only headline of this thread?

I am saying''I think this is not a lion''
And I read them

Ok, I think, that all others know and knew already, that it isn´t a lion and spalea also mentioned it. So your comment was looking quite odd after all those other postings. I thought, that you didn´t read any other comments, so my mistake then :)

If I offense you,I am sorry.

Nothing personal, your comment was just confusing :) I mean this is quite short thread, but sometimes there are misunderstandings and maybe some language barrier can make some comments looking different for reader than the person writing meant. Reply

[Arctotherium]

(04-20-2019, 02:47 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 02:40 PM)Arctotherium Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 02:38 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 02:23 PM)Arctotherium Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:24 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:09 PM)Arctotherium Wrote: Interesting.Thanks for info.But I think this is not a lion.

Did you read other postings in this thread or only headline of this thread?

I am saying''I think this is not a lion''
And I read them

Ok, I think, that all others know and knew already, that it isn´t a lion and spalea also mentioned it. So your comment was looking quite odd after all those other postings. I thought, that you didn´t read any other comments, so my mistake then :)

If I offense you,I am sorry.

Nothing personal, your comment was just confusing :) I mean this is quite short thread, but sometimes there are misunderstandings and maybe some language barrier can make some comments looking different for reader than the person writing meant.

Allright.Thanks. Reply

[epaiva]

(04-19-2019, 01:49 AM)Spalea Wrote: Big discovery in Kenya: remains of a very big and old lion "The simbakubwa" dated of 23 millions years and weighing 1500 kilos :

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2..._3244.html

I reproduce here the text, from "Le Monde" newspaper, in french:

Des dents et des fragments d’os vieux de 23 millions d’années ont permis d’identifier le Simbakubwa, sept fois plus gros qu’un lion adulte.

Des dents et des fragments d’os vieux de vingt-trois millions d’années découverts au Kenya ont permis d’identifier l’un des plus grands mammifères carnivores ayant foulé la Terre. Sept fois plus gros qu’un lion, pesant environ 1 500 kg et capable de s’attaquer à des animaux de la taille des éléphants et des hippopotames, l’inquiétant animal a été baptisé Simbakubwa kutokaafrika (pour « grand lion d’Afrique »). « Au vu de ses dents massives, Simbakubwa était un hypercarnivore », explique Matthew Borths de l’université Duke, auteur principal de l’étude publiée jeudi 18 avril dans le Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Les restes de l’animal – un morceau de mâchoire inférieure comportant une canine, une prémolaire et une molaire ainsi que d’autres dents et quelques os – avaient été découverts il y a des dizaines années, mais avaient été attribués à une espèce plus petite, Hyainailouros napakensis. Ils attendaient depuis au musée national de Nairobi.

Selon les chercheurs, l’animal est mort relativement jeune. Pourtant, sa mâchoire est beaucoup plus grosse que celle d’un lion de taille adulte. « Avec ses canines, il pouvait cisailler la chair, tandis que ses molaires lui permettaient de casser les os », précise un communiqué. Simbakubwa vivait au début du Miocène. Mais les conditions permettant l’existence de tels gabarits semblent avoir persisté pendant des millions d’années, précisent les chercheurs.

And I translate my best:

Teeth and remains of bones from 23 millions years allowed to identify the Simbakubwa, 7 times bigger than an adult lion.

Some teeth and fragments of bones from 23 millions years, discovered in Kenya, allowed to identify one of the biggest carnivore mammals having walked on the Earth. Seven times bigger than a lion, weighing around 1500 kilos and able to attack some hippo or elephant-sized-animals, the disturbing animal has been called Simbakubwa kutokaafrika ("big African lion"). According to its masive teeth, Simbakubwa was an hypercarnivore, explained Matthews Borths from the Duke university, main author of the study published Tuesday 18th April in the Vertebrate Paleontology newspaper.

The animal's remains - a piece of the lower jaw including a fang, a premolar and a molar as well as other teeth and a few bones discovered a few decades ago, but were attributed to a smaller specy, Hyainailouros napakensis. They were waiting since then at the national museum of Nairobi.

According to the searchers, the animal is dead relatively young. Yet its jaw is much bigger than an adult lion's one. "With its fangs, it could cut through the flesh, whereas its molars allowed it to break the bones", a press release stated. Simbakubwa lived during the beginning of the Miocene. But the conditions allowing such sized animals existence seem to have lasted during millions years, the searchers stated.

@Spalea
Great find my Friend, thanks for sharing Reply

[epaiva]

(04-20-2019, 11:19 AM)Wolverine Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 07:07 AM)epaiva Wrote: It was not a Lion it was a giant creodont
Credit to Mauricio Anton

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Amazing. So he was more massive even than andrewsarchus, daeodon or short-faced bear??...

@Wolverine
It was a huge incredible animal for sure, look at its huge lower fang. Hope they can find the upper portion of its Skull and big part of its skeleton. Reply

[epaiva]

(04-20-2019, 11:54 AM)Wolverine Wrote: This is Mathew Borths - the scientist who described this ancient mammal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

@tigerluver
What size do you estimate would have that huge skull? Reply

[epaiva]

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Wolverine]

(04-21-2019, 02:39 AM)epaiva Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

If in the last picture proportion between Simba-beast and African lion are correct this animal in picture should be not "only" 7 times larger and weighted "only" 1500 kg but looks 20 times more massive and weight several tons... Look at picture - its larger than big rhino. I think somewhere is mistake:

1.) Mistake could be in initial assessment that Simba-beast weight was 1500 kg
or
2..) That skull is not from adult African lion but from sub-adult or very young African lion
or
3.) The last picture with proportions is not correct

If this proportions are correct the Simba-beast should weight 180 kg x 20 = 3,6 tons... by far the largest carnivorous land mammal ever to walk this planet, but such a body mass is close to impossible for carnivorous land mammal. Somewhere there in the info we have is not correct. Reply

[Sanju]

(04-21-2019, 04:56 AM)Wolverine Wrote: 2..) That skull is not from adult African lion but from sub-adult or very young African lion
or
3.) The last picture with proportions is not correct

3 is more likely. With that proportions, it would be size of rhino but not as massive as that. May be about 2 tons being a carnivore... 3.6 tons for those proportions is too much. it makes him to move very slowly even his own weight will crush its bones (Bone has compressive strength of only about 1800 kg-f/cm2 at its maximum), and body needs lots of meat to sustain and with this type of gait, it can't even walk and hunting is even more difficult. Reply

[Spalea]

@"Wolverine" @"Sanju" 

About #22 and #23: Would it be a giant scavenger ? Very powerful claws, excessive weight preventing the beast to move quickly, ... But what such a weight ? 3,6 tons (the biggest white rhino's recorded weight according to wikipedia), it's a nonsense. Was the Simbakubwa following the mastodonts' herds in order to feed on the corpses ?

We could believe to see the very bad descriptions of the T-rex during the 1980s or 1990s. Reply

[Wolverine]

Daeodon shoshonensis obviosly had a longer lower jaw than Simba-beast. From the chart is visible that its length is around 1,5 times of average man's width in the shoulders or ar 75-80 cm:

*This image is copyright of its original author

While the length of Simba-beast lower jaw is exactly equal to average man width in the shoulders - ar. 50 cm:

*This image is copyright of its original author

In other words the size of this jaw is not something unique. Obviously assessment of 1500 kg is quite correct and the picture with real size of Simba-beast is this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

while the size of the beast below is highly exaggerated or the skull of the African lion is not from adult animal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Sanju]

(04-21-2019, 10:17 AM)Spalea Wrote: Was the Simbakubwa following the mastodonts' herds in order to feed on the corpses ?

Mastodons evolved during early Pliocene. This creodont is a Miocene carnivore lived about 23 mya.

*This image is copyright of its original author

These are the fauna available during miocene.

Based on it's teeth shape and design it's more like a bone crusher like his other Hyaenodontids. So, he might be a scavenger like short faced bear, feeding on Paraceratherium and early probocideans which has enough mass to fulfill this beast.

Being a member of ancestral taxa (ferae) to all carnivora order. He possessed digitigrade locomotion, that gives him to run at moderate speeds helpful to catch some giraffids of Africa making it predator upto some extent.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Spalea]

@Sanju 

About #26: yes, I was wrong, sorry... The proboscidea during the Miocene and in Africa were mainly the gomphotherium:

Reply

[tigerluver]

Had some time to read up on this new find. While likely large, the size here may be heavily over-exaggerated. 

Starting with the estimation itself, note there are three estimates: one by Morlo (1308 kg), another by Van Valkenburgh (VV) for felids (1554 kg), and finally Van Valkenburgh for carnivoras >100 kg (280 kg). 

Morlo's (1999) equation has extremely overestimated other more complete specimens of creodonts. The equation is extremely positively allometric (scale factor 3.5104), thus running the innate risk of hefty, hefty overestimation. 

The VV equation for felids simply is not valid here. Felids have proportionately much, much smaller skulls compared to their bodies than creodonts. Using a felid based equation to estimate the big toothed, extremely long headed creodont will give a very inaccurate and over-exaggerated value.

Note H. sulzeri (MNHN.F.Or 311-51) estimates in this paper (Morlo: 1276 kg; VV1: 1185 kg). Now let's take a look at the post-cranial remains of the same specimen (I've also added the table so we can see how H. sulzeri compares in bone measurements to Simbakubwa:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Based on the scale bars, the ulna measures just about 320 mm and humerus' distal articular width a bit less than 60 mm. These values are no larger than the size of a small-medium lioness (150 kg). Knowing that postcranial remains are always more accurate than cranial remains, the only conclusion that is to be made is that the Morlo and VV equation have overstimated H. sulzeri by 8 times. Seeing how H. sulzeri is a bit smaller than Simbakubwa, a mass of 1500 kg just does not seem accurate for Simbakubwa.

I will skip over the second VV equation as universal equations are not accurate as a single line cannot simply account for all the variations we see in species.

Next we have the associated long bones themselves. The authors state they believe the long bones from the same locality as the jaw do not belong to Simbakubwa despite the original assignment to the same individual as the mandible by the finders of the fossils. These fossils were collected close to one another. Sorkin also believed these were from the same individual. I will leave that decision to the reader. Nonetheless, here are the specimens:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The humerus and ulna are both about 330 mm. In both cases somewhat smaller than the average male lion. If we accept these specimens as Simbakubwa, we see these specimens are a bit larger than H. sulzeri, as predicted by the dental comparisons.

The authors do acknowledge the uncertainty of estimate in the work. Here we can see how skewed estimate can be when comparing one taxa to another. Simbakubwa clearly had a bigger head than a lion, but it probably was not any bigger. Reply

[Polar]

(05-12-2019, 02:09 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Had some time to read up on this new find. While likely large, the size here may be heavily over-exaggerated. 

Starting with the estimation itself, note there are three estimates: one by Morlo (1308 kg), another by Van Valkenburgh (VV) for felids (1554 kg), and finally Van Valkenburgh for carnivoras >100 kg (280 kg). 

Morlo's (1999) equation has extremely overestimated other more complete specimens of creodonts. The equation is extremely positively allometric (scale factor 3.5104), thus running the innate risk of hefty, hefty overestimation. 

The VV equation for felids simply is not valid here. Felids have proportionately much, much smaller skulls compared to their bodies than creodonts. Using a felid based equation to estimate the big toothed, extremely long headed creodont will give a very inaccurate and over-exaggerated value.

Note H. sulzeri (MNHN.F.Or 311-51) estimates in this paper (Morlo: 1276 kg; VV1: 1185 kg). Now let's take a look at the post-cranial remains of the same specimen (I've also added the table so we can see how H. sulzeri compares in bone measurements to Simbakubwa:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Based on the scale bars, the ulna measures just about 320 mm and humerus' distal articular width a bit less than 60 mm. These values are no larger than the size of a small-medium lioness (150 kg). Knowing that postcranial remains are always more accurate than cranial remains, the only conclusion that is to be made is that the Morlo and VV equation have overstimated H. sulzeri by 8 times. Seeing how H. sulzeri is a bit smaller than Simbakubwa, a mass of 1500 kg just does not seem accurate for Simbakubwa.

I will skip over the second VV equation as universal equations are not accurate as a single line cannot simply account for all the variations we see in species.

Next we have the associated long bones themselves. The authors state they believe the long bones from the same locality as the jaw do not belong to Simbakubwa despite the original assignment to the same individual as the mandible by the finders of the fossils. These fossils were collected close to one another. Sorkin also believed these were from the same individual. I will leave that decision to the reader. Nonetheless, here are the specimens:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The humerus and ulna are both about 330 mm. In both cases somewhat smaller than the average male lion. If we accept these specimens as Simbakubwa, we see these specimens are a bit larger than H. sulzeri, as predicted by the dental comparisons.

The authors do acknowledge the uncertainty of estimate in the work. Here we can see how skewed estimate can be when comparing one taxa to another. Simbakubwa clearly had a bigger head than a lion, but it probably was not any bigger.

This is sort-of the same thing as when they found the humerus of the Pleistocene Polar Bear, an over-estimation in size but later measurements allowed scientists to see that wasn't the case. I really wanted to see this one put amongst the giants of Andrewsarchus, Sarkastodon, Megistotherium, and others. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-21-2019, 10:26 AM)Wolverine Wrote: While the length of Simba-beast lower jaw is exactly equal to average man width in the shoulders - ar. 50 cm:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


In other words the size of this jaw is not something unique. Obviously assessment of 1500 kg is quite correct and the picture with real size of Simba-beast is this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


while the size of the beast below is highly exaggerated or the skull of the African lion is not from adult animal:

*This image is copyright of its original author

@tigerluver and @Wolverine hit the nail. All those news reports are full of exagerations and at some point are not reliable.

Also, these images from the news media showing how huge was this new animal with a random sized lion skull are rubish. In fact, the mandible do not seems to be larger than a Panthera atrox skull, which means that althoug it is larger than the largest wild lion skull recorded (408 mm) it is not exageratelly large as the image is depicted. This extinct animal was not near the 900 kg, I think that Sarkastodon mongoliensis, Hyaenodon gigas and even Amphicyon ingens were larger or as large as this new African animal. Reply