Remove this ad



Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#21 [url]

Jan 17 14 9:19 AM

I think both evolutionary adaptation and niche clash play a role.

Panthera spelaea or any other lion-clade cats couldn't adapt the heavily wooded areas in East Asia, meanwhile they got the competition from the local tiger-clade cats. That's why they were never successful of holding their foot in East Asia and China.

BTW, it seems that Panthera fossilis is closer to Panthera leo in the body type, whereas Panthera spelaea sits in between Panthera leo and Panthera tigris, as a more recently evolved species.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Jan 17 14 8:09 PM

Long bone wise, fossils show no difference in robusticity across P. spelaea, P. fossilis, P. leo and P. atrox (I did not show P. atrox in the last chart but their epicondylar indices are the same as the rest of clad). This trend would be feasible, as all these species colonized open savanna type regions, so they would have long but wide bones, as a response to running stress.

Marciszak (2013) does show that P. fossilis and P. spelaea have different skulls. P. spelaea had a stouter skull, so it is possible that they had heavier bodies in proportion to skull length.

Quote    Reply   

#23 [url]

Jan 17 14 9:01 PM

Wow guys, you have advanced a lot in the topic, and I have not even the read half of it! smiley: embarassed


Tonight I will be only, I going to read the entire posts and I will share my opinion in light of this new document.


Greetings and good job. smiley: smile


Quote    Reply   

#24 [url]

Jan 22 14 1:53 AM

This new document of Sotnikova & Foronova (2014) present a different scenario apart from the one speculated by Barnett et al. (2009). Lets discus this:


Barnett et al. (2009) stated that Panthera atrox was the descendent of the eastern population of Eurasian cave lions and that begin its separation at about 337,000 years ago, with a final and definitive separation at 200,000 years BP. These dates correspond exactly in the period of the Middle Pleistocene.


Check that Barnett and his team never mention anything about the Panthera spelaea fossilis in this part, he only mention it as the root of its Fig. 2. However this is the species what was living in that time. Just after this separation between Fossilis-Atrox happened that the evolution of the Upper Pleistocene cave lion begins.


Now, it is interesting to see that Barnett et al. (2009) also proposed that at some moment at 46,000-48,000 years BP there was a sharp decline in genetic diversity, with the extinction of several haplotypes, while after this time, only one (B) existed. This genetic bottleneck removed the earlier lineages.


Latter, “a subsequent re-invasion and/or range expansion of haplotype B is consistent with it being the most widespread and numerous mitochondrial sequence across the spelaea range (12 out of 17 specimens) after 48 000 bp. Members of the star radiation (haplotypes B and D) are first detected at 46 000 and 50 000 bp, suggesting that this group had started diversifying before the putative genetic bottleneck. The other derived haplotypes (A, C and E) may have also existed at this point, or evolved subsequently as populations containing haplotype B expanded in range and numbers. Such a pattern could be produced by the localized extinction of populations (e.g. across Eurasia), followed by the replacement with individuals from other parts of the range (e.g. eastern Beringia), as has previously been detected in Pleistocene bison and mammoth populations (Shapiro et al. 2004; Debruyne et al. 2008).


In simple words, it seems that Bartnett et al. (2009), based on DNA, states that the original species Panthera spelaea, which gives origin to the P. s. fossilis, evolved in Europe and expanded to all the north or Eurasia, reaching America and forming a population that reached up to México (Chiapas). Latter, in the upper Pleistocene of Eurasia, the original genetic variation disappeared and a re-invasion of specimens from Beringia repopulated Europe with new specimens, smaller in size, just like those from Alaska, Yakutia and the famous P. youngi (?).


Now, how the new theory of Sotnikova & Foronova (2014) fits here? Well, as we don’t have yet the document itself, we can only speculate from the abstract. They state that P. s. fossilis reached the center of North Asia and beyond. Check these two maps from the Kuznezk Basin, from two different views:




From this, they stated that Panthera (spelaea) atrox was a relic population of Cromerian lions in America. Check that this new hypothesis put even further the  separation between modern lion (Panthera leo) and Panthera (spelaea) atrox, even when they still use “leo” in the name sometimes, which only creates more confusion.


Other important thing is that this new fossils is older than previous discoveries of European lions, which means that it should be beyond the 600,000 years BP mark (700,000 years according with Wikipedia). With this, the evolutionary tree of Barnett et al. (2009) and Burguer et al. (2005) should change and the separation between “spelaea” and “leo” should be larger genetically speaking.


Now, this image (source please?) is contradictory to the study of Barnett et al. (2009):



Here, the author proposes that the Late Pleistocene lions came from a group that evolved in Europe itself and only until the late Pleistocene they spread to Eurasia. However this is contradictory to the genetic bottleneck identified by Barnett and his team, which propose that were the West Asia lions which repopulated Europe and replaced the old form (Fossilis).


It seems that at this moment, both documents agree in the fact that Panthera atrox was a direct descendent of the Cromerian lion (Panthera fossilis) and that the Eurasian Cave lion (Panthera spelaea) also spread from the old Panthera fossilis in the MIS6.


Now, until we see the document itself of 2014, we can only argue about its results. Interesting that the document of Marciszak et al. (2013; the document of the giant skulls) identified a direct evolutionary trait between Fossilis and Spelaea, but let’s see the new document and we will take our own conclusions.


Quote    Reply   

#25 [url]

Jan 22 14 2:27 AM

I forgotten one important thing, Barnett et al. (2009) pointed out one fundamental fact, Panthera atrox and Panthera spelaea DON’T INTERBREED.


This is important, especially by hard-core-lion-fans like Asad that said that all this different species-subspecies were “lions” per se. smiley: laugh The genetic evidence shows that this point of view is equivocal as if they were the same, why they don’t mix? In fact, there was some type of mutual avoidance, even when the pass between Alaska and the north of USA was open. Bison passed the conection Alaska-USA, horses to that to, even Mammoths do cross the area and intermix with the Eurasian counterparts, however, American “Lions” simple don’t, maybe they avoided Panthera spelaea that hunted in groups, while Panthera atrox was a lonely hunter (as the few specimens of Rancho La Brea suggests). smiley: nerd


Barnett et al. (2009) showed that there was not (or little) genetic crossing between Fossilis and Atrox since about 337,000 years ago and this goes to Zero at about 200,000 years BP. Then when the Upper Pleistocene lions (Spelaea) habituated Beringia, they never crossed the Alaska perimeter and Panthera atrox also don’t travel to the north. This was simple, these were already two different animals, probably different species that although they had a single origin, they have already evolved in two distinct own forms. It is even possible that they have different morphological forms and coat patterns.


So, it seems that Panthera spelaea fossilis is a basal species that gives origin to different species, the Eurasian Panthera spelaea spelaea and the American Panthera spelaea atrox. Now, at species level, they were: Original Panthera fossilis that gives origin to Panthera spelaea (Eurasia) and Panthera atrox (America). Interesting, the word “leo” is irrelevant here and should not used, as these were not lions, but a different species, closely related with lions, but with a different evolution.


Quote    Reply   


Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#26 [url]

Jan 22 14 8:49 AM

Interestingly that Panthera fossilis has evolved into several different species, while Panthera tigris acutidens didn't.

Also, there is also some theories suggested that Panthera spelaea was not evolved from Panthera fossilis. They probably evolved in Asia, then later penetrated into Europe to replace Panthera fossilis.

Quote    Reply   

#27 [url]

Jan 25 14 9:54 AM

In fact, we don’t know if the Pleistocene tiger of China had actually more subspecies. The only nominated is that of the Middle Pleistocene Panthera tigris acutidens. The Wanhsien tiger of the Middle to early Upper Pleistocene is not formally named as Hooijer leave it as that, but for extension he also classified it as P. t. acutidens, although not formally.


However, if we look the fossils, there is a clear change on size between the early forms (barely larger than a modern Sunda tiger) and the late ones (of the same size than Bengal-Amur tigers). Is the same change of size observed in the Eurasian “lions”, but at the contrary (from small to large). I suspect that probably the late larger forms were a different subspecies, but as no one has worked with those fossils in modern times, we can only conclude that the P. t. acutidens was a long lived subspecies of tiger and that its only surviving population (North Indochina-South China) at 75,000-108,000 years BP give origin to the modern mainland tiger in the form of Panthera tigris amoyensis.


About the last part, this is what I discussed before. Barnett et al. (2009) suggest that they were the same animal, but a different subspecies and that the giant European specimens were replaced by the smaller Beringian ones trough a bottleneck in the Upper Pleistocene. However, Sotnikova & Foronova (2014) propose a different evolution, with European specimens replacing the larger Eurasian forms.


I found interesting that in both cases, the early form was the leonine Panthera spelaea fossilis that enter in the Cromerian at Europe and that already presented a giant form. I have a new large femur of this species found in Israel much earlier than the European form (I will post them in a next opportunity).


What is really clear, based in both genetic and morphological characteristics correctly interpreted, is that Panthera spelaea (fossilis, spelaea and atrox) is NOT Panthera leo. They are just sister species that form the “lion clade” together with the leopard and the jaguar. I have found a new thesis (from 2012) that clearly shows this and that put to rest this debate.


Quote    Reply   

#28 [url]

Jan 25 14 10:07 AM

The excerpt is from Sotnikova and Foronova (2014).

I can't wait to see the new femur dimensions and thesis, please post soon! Is the femur larger than the 470 mm one we have recorded on here? I've not heard much of fossil cats in Israel. 

Last Edited By: tigerluver Jan 25 14 10:29 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#29 [url]

Jan 25 14 10:33 AM

The giant “lion(s)” of Israel

Here is the femur from Israel, hopefully, it have a ruler to see the actual length. Is identified as “the Fossil (dark) Musterian Lion femur from NMO”:



Here is the skull of the specimen:



Here is the full set of bones:



1. There is the article with the femur:



Current Activity

• Salvage excavations

 The laboratory team is often involved in salvage excavations, especially when finds are exposed that require experience in field conservation, taking into account the needs of future research at the laboratory.  The Revadim salvage excavation was carried out at the Revadim Quarry (west of Jerusalem), a Lower Paleolithic site (Late Acheulian ca. 400,000 B.P.) by the Israel Antiquities Authority. For the first time in the southern Levant we uncovered a complete elephant scapula. Data from this find, added to those of the other elephant remains, provided the possibility of better reconstruction of the local Palaeoloxodon antiquus, the straight-tusked elephant that disappeared from the southern Levant at the end of the Lower Paleolithic (ca. 300,000 BP).



The page quotes several other documents about the place, but is the lion what interest us. By the way, the date of the cite (and the femur) is latter than the European on (400,000 against 600,000), so is earlier but still a very large specimen.


2. This is the article of the skull:

A roaring success from Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov

Recent large-scale operations to deepen the Jordan River between the Pkak Bridge and the Crusader fortress of Metzad Ateret caused tremendous damage to the many prehistoric sites in this area. In wake of this, a geo-archaeological salvage survey was conducted jointly by the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University and the Israel Antiquities Authority. Just north of the well-known Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, the survey uncovered a Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) and Upper Paleolithic site that contained large amounts of stone tools, animal bones, wood and other botanical remains, all in excellent preservation, with much potential for future research.


One of the most outstanding finds was the skull of a lion found embedded in the east bank of the Jordan , at the outlet of Nahal Mahanayyim. A lion femur was found immediately below the skull. The bones are in a very good state of preservation, though while the femur was found in one piece, the skull was smashed and some parts were missing. This is most likely the work of the heavy machinery used at this spot. The skull was refitted at the archaeozoology lab at the Givat Ram campus of the Hebrew University by Gali Biner. The femur was sampled for C14 dating and the age was determined as around 25,000 years BP.



This article states that the age of the femur is even earlier at 25,000 BP.


3. Here is the page of the overall bones:

2013 !! Excavation Season at Nahal Mahanayeem Outlet (NMO)


NMO is a Mousterian site located at the outlet of the Mahanayeem stream to the Jordan River, some 10 km north of the Sea of Galilee. The Jordan River at this vicinity cuts through sediments ranging in age from the Pliocene to the Holocene. The three km strip along the banks of the Jordan River South of the Hula Valley is rich in archaeological sites including the famous Gesher Benot Ya´aqov Acheulian site and the crusader fortress of Vadim Yaqub. The NMO site was discovered during Jordan River drainage operations in the fall of 1999, and has been undergoing excavation since 2007 by a team from the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Tel Hai Academic College.


The site is open air, with the artifacts and animal bones found within black muddy silt, suggesting a lake shore environment at the time of occupation. The inhabitants of the area during the Middle Paleolithic produced Mousterian lithic tools including, primarily, points and blades. The site is dated to ca 65000 years BP based on OSL radiometric dates. Numerous animal bones in excellent preservation state were excavated. The dominant species is the giant wild cow, three times the size of present day cows. Other animal remains include deer, horse, wild boar, tortoise, birds and more. One of the most significant animal finds is the skull and femur of a lion found in-situ in the mud of the Jordan River Bank in 2002. Similar to other prehistoric sites in the region, the NMO sediments are waterlogged and hence preserve botanical material such as seeds, fruits, bark and wood. The site holds, therefore, great potential for the reconstruction of the environment of the region during the Middle Pleistocene. Finally, a human (non-Neanderthal) skull fragment was found in one of the piles of dirt dug up by a tractor during the 1999 drainage work. The confirmation of the presence of humans will contribute to the debate over the emergence of modern humans in the Levant and their migration routes out-of-Africa.


The 2012 excavation season at NMO will take place during a four-week period in the summer of 2012. Lodging is at an air-conditioned hostel with swimming pool at Kibbutz Gadot, a 5-minute drive west of the site. For additional information please contact Dr. Gonen Sharon [email protected]



Damn, this other page put a date of 65,000 years BP. Now I am officially confused. Maybe the first femur is from a different area, I don’t know, but the fossils are here, just that the dates are a mess. Maybe you can unveil this thing, I am confused. smiley: sick


Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#30 [url]

Jan 25 14 10:44 AM

Panthera atrox is not a lion “per se”, AGAIN!!!

The name of the thesis is:

King, Leigha M., "Phylogeny of Panthera, Including P. atrox, Based on Cranialmandibular Characters" (2012). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1444.

Link to the full paper:



Over the past 20 years both morphological and molecular phylogenies have been proposed for extant and extinct members of the family Felidae. However, there remain several discrepancies, particularly within the genus Panthera and the position of Panthera atrox. Consequently, morphologic characters from the skull and dentary were analyzed within Panthera (including all extant and one extinct taxa) to gain a better understanding of pantherine phylogeny. Multiple specimens of each taxon were analyzed, including: P. leo, P. tigris, P. onca, P. pardus , Uncia uncia, and Neofelis nebulosa. Four outgroups were used; Crocuta crocuta, Metailurus ssp., Proailurus lemanensis, and Pseudaelurus validus. From each phylogeny created, despite the outgroup, apparent grouping between Panthera leo, P. tigris, and P. atrox was present. Therefore, P. atrox is likely more closely related to the African lion and the tiger than the jaguar, in contrast to what has been recently suggested.


Conclusion of the paper:

By choosing four different outgroups, more confidence can be bestowed on the phylogenetic relationships created than can be said from a single outgroup. Based on the morphological characters used here, a relationship between Panthera leo and P. atrox is supported, whereas one between P. onca and P. atrox is not. However, the relationship between P. leo and P. atrox is not consistent enough to suggest the two species are synonymous. Instead, based on my analysis, I suggest the two are likely sister taxa and that they share a common ancestor. Inclusion of the European cave lion, P. spelaea, may provide more insight on the relationship between the “lions”. Retention of the name Panthera atrox and not previous names such as P. leo atrox is supported here. In addition, the consistent basal position for Uncia uncial supports that the species should not be included in the genus Panthera. Molecular phylogenies using C. crocuta as the outgroup compare well with the morphological phylogeny created here. This suggests that despite the spotted hyena being a highly derived species, its characters make it an appropriate outgroup to Panthera.


Panthera atrox correct, Panthera leo atrox NO. smiley: pimp


Quote    Reply   

#32 [url]

Jan 25 14 10:52 AM

Thanks for posting all this awesome info quickly! There's a lot to digest, I'll get on it tomorrow, it's almost 3 a.m. where I am (don't ask why I'm awake smiley: tongue).

I am a bit confused too about the dates. Do we have two separate femurs here or just one? Also, wouldn't a 25,000 year old femur be from a upper Pleistocene specimen? From the picture, the femur looks to be around 400 mm, similar to modern lions. Forgive me for any mistakes, it's late.

The skull being crushed is disappointing. Makes one think, imagine how many fossils have been crushed all around Asia at this point. So many prehistoric species we may never record. The North American tar pits may not have been good for the victims at the time, but they're great for science today. 

Last Edited By: tigerluver Jan 25 14 10:57 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#33 [url]

Jan 25 14 11:12 AM

Check this image:



My reconstruction shows that the femur measure c.41 cm, while that of the modern lion was of c.38 mm. The longest femur recorded for a modern lion is of 401.5 mm or 40.2 cm (Christiansen & Harris, 2005), this new fossil femur is slightly larger and in comparison with the other femur in the picture, more massive overall.



For the date, it seems that is late Pleistocene, but for the species, it is hard to say. The size is too large for a modern lion, but at that time, there were no Cave lions in the Middle East, so is possible, and I mean “possible” that this was a “modern” lion (Panthera leo), although a very large one.



Don’t worry, I will not ask, jajajajaja. smiley: laugh


About the femur, I think that is the same, check the cut (rectangular form) on the middle part of the bone, it is also present in the image with all the fossils. So it must be the same bone.


The fossils in Asia are a real gift, bones are not well preserved in wet climates and all the tiger area is wet. So, every bone from tigers is practically a miracle. Hopefully, for the USA mammals, La Brea Tar Pits is really a fossil rarity and a great opportunity to study such a great base of bones.


Quote    Reply   

#35 [url]

Feb 4 14 11:53 PM

About Panthera atrox – Part 1

I will copy some of my posts in AVA about the great Panther of North America:


GrizzlyClaws: Do you think Panthera atrox should be as subspecies of Panthera spelaea or it was just a sister species to the modern jaguar?


Me: This is, for the moment, an unanswered question, why? Here are my points.


According with Barnett et al. (2009), which only used four specimens from the north of USA (bordering Canada), the American “Lion” (Panthera atrox) should be a subspecies of the Eurasian steppe lion (Panthera spelaea), after all, they separate it relative recently (between 337,000 - 200,000 years ago). In fact, if we take in count the document of Marciszak et al. (2013), the antecessor of both Eurasian steppe lion (Panthera spelaea spelaea) and Panthera atrox was the Cromerian lion (P. s. fossilis), which lived in the time when the first American cousins begin they separation.


Interesting, Barnet never mentioned directly that Panthera atrox was a “true lion”, he only used the name “leo” as this seems the norm in the USA-UK, for idiosyncratic reasons. However, check what Barnett and his team really said:

These observations are consistent with the suggestion that the three forms may represent separate species, rather than subspecies (Sotnikova, Nikolskiy 2006). However, pronounced mitochondrial phylogeographical structure has also been observed in Pleistocene eastern Beringian brown bear populations, albeit for much shorter time periods (Barnes et al. 2002). To fully resolve the species status of the three lion forms, it will be necessary to include both nuclear and morphological data.


This is where enter Christiansen & Harris (2009), which based in a morphological study realized in specimens from the La Brea Tar Pits only, found that Panthera atrox had lion characteristics in the skull, but it had jaguar characteristics in the mandible and some tiger characteristics over all. This evidence suggested that Panthera atrox was not a lion per se, but a different subspecies, related with jaguars. They proposed that the American great cat was a survivor of the initial invasion of the European jaguar (Panthera onca gombaszoegensis) that gives origin to the Asian great cats and the American jaguar, and that evolved to live in open plains. This study was corroborated by Mazák et al. (2011), in the document about the Longdang “tiger” (Panthera Zdanskyi).


This are two points of view, however none of them cover the full thing, why? Well, the study of Barnett et al. (2009) used only four specimens and from the frontier of USA-Canada, adjacent to the large Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. However, these specimens showed enough genetic differences to separate them from the Beringian lions, and this last ones were genetically identical with the European steppe lions. They don’t use any specimen from Rancho La Brea, Florida or Mexico. This is the weakest point of this genetic study.


On the other hand, the study of Christiansen & Harris (2009), although used a much larger sample (23 specimens), they focused only in the specimens of Rancho La Brea, which is only a small part of the great habitat of P. atrox. It is possible that they were several populations of P. atrox, like subspecies, and then, some intraespecific variations could lead to different approaches.


As we can see, none of the studies resolve the issue satisfactorily and sadly, most American scientists prefer the DNA point of view and ignore the morphological approach. However, they enter in a huge mistake, because the only relation between the “lions” of the study of Barnett and those of Rancho La Brea is MORPHOLOGICAL, so it they denied the study of Christiansen, is like they denied automatically any relation with the specimens of the south.


Mixing both studies, we can get these ideas:


1. Based on DNA: Panthera atrox was a species-subspecies related to the Cromerian lion that evolved isolated in North America. The primitive characteristics (jaguar mandible) are part of the isolation from the main stream of Eurasia. However, as the Cromerian lion separated from the main lion stream about 600,000 years ago, the Panthera atrox is just very far related with modern lion and they species-subspecies status is still unclear.


2. Based on morphology: Panthera atrox was a distinct subspecies that evolved from the invasion of the European jaguar, which also gives origin to the great Asian cats and that evolved isolated from the Beringian lions, thanks to a natural barrier (also described by Barnett, by the way).


3. Mixing the two studies (probably a crazy theory): Panthera atrox was a species with two origins, the first specimens (from the south) evolved from the first European jaguars that also give origin to the American jaguars. Latter, a new invasion of Beringian lions produced a mix between species and gives origin to a species with jaguar characteristics but with some lion DNA.


Finally, there is no nuclear (DNA, I suppose) study yet (as Barnett suggested). Maybe using this third point of view, we can clarify this issue.


Quote    Reply   

#36 [url]

Feb 4 14 11:56 PM

About Panthera atrox – Part 2

These are the points of view regarding this great cat:


1. USA-UK scientists seem to be obsessed with the lion issue and normally discard any study that show that these cats are not lions. However, when we read them papers, they are always ambiguous in the conclusions. Russian scientists, on the other hand, don’t hesitate in classified all Pleistocene “lions” as a different species on they own.


2. These cats are not lions at all, genetically and morphologically speaking, but they closest relative is the modern lion, although they are a different branch of the evolution since about 600,000 years ago.


Take in count that even with the modern lion, the subspecies issue is a mess, what can we expect from a group of animals that are dead since thousands of years???


In the future I will follow this evolutionary tree, which is based in both morphological and mtDNA studies:


Lion “clade” - Subgenus Panthera:

1. Panthera onca (jaguar):

            * Panthera onca gombaszoegensis - Europe (Pleistocene).

            * Panthera onca augusta - North America (Pleistocene).

            * Panthera onca mesembrina - South America (Pleistocene).

            * Panthera onca onca - All modern population, no subspecies.

2. Panthera pardus (leopard):

            * Several modern and prehistoric subspecies.

3. Panthera leo (lion):

            * Panthera leo leo - Asia, Barbary and West -Central Africa.

            * Panthera leo melanochaita - Two clades: East and Southern Africa.

            * Panthera leo persica - Indian lion, ONLY for conservation purposes.

4. Panthera spelaea (steppe “lion”):

            * Panthera spelaea fossilis - Europe (Cromerian, middle Pleistocene).

            * Panthera spelaea spelaea - Eurasia and Beringia (Late Pleistocene).

            * Panthera (spelaea) atrox - North America.


Tiger “clade” - subgenus Tigris:

1. Panthera (Uncia) uncia (Snow leopard):

            * No distinct subspecies (as far I know).

2. Panthera tigris (tiger):

            * Panthera tigris tigris - mainland population.

            * Panthera tigris sondaica - island population.

            * Panthera tigris sumatrae (tigris x sondaica) - Sumatran island.

            * Four other Pleistocene subspecies.


Basal Pantherinae:

1. Panthera blytheae - Central Asia.

2. Panthera paleosinensis - East Asia.

3. Panthera (onca) toscana - Europe.

4. Panthera zdanskyi - East Asia.


This is the best that I can do for the moment, been unbiased and using all the available published documents on this issue.


Sadly, sometimes, scientists do what they do but they do it following a preconception. They are very prepared persons (like any professional), I know because I have been honored to work with two Biologist in my country in a little project, but it seems that modern science is looking the way of old religions, they are practically closed to new ideas; if we see some modern documents, they only copy-paste old statements, without making at least a slight review on they accuracy.


However, like I stated before, but Burger et al. (2004) and Barnett et al. (2009) leave the species-subspecies issues open to debate, although Burger’s team at least, is more or less clear in they believe that cave lions were strongly related with lions.


If we read the documents of Russian scientists like Dr Barishnikov or Stefaniak, for example, they already classified all the cave “lions” in they own different species, which I believe will be the correct issue. I mean, even the document of Merriam & Stock from 1932 already classified Panthera atrox like a different animal and presented several evidences that show that it was related with both lions and jaguar.


This case is the same than with the old records, like peter said, some modern scientists like to discard old studies without any proper discussion of disqualification and make the mistake to give vague results with only leave to “ideological” battles between amateur investigators like us.


Quote    Reply   

#37 [url]

Feb 5 14 12:00 AM

About Panthera atrox – Part 3

What Barnett et al. (2009) REALLY said? Just in case that someone can say that I am stating nonsense here, check the map of Barnett et al (2009):



The specimen 35 and 36 came from a Natural Trap Cave, Wyoming, USA, while the No. 37 and 38 came from the “Consolidated pit 48”, in Edmonton, Canada. As you can see, they used only FOUR specimens and all were very close to the border. From my point of view, the most problematic are No. 37 and 38. What if those specimens were only “washed” to the south when the ice sheets melted?


However, we must give more credit to Barnett’s team study; check what they state in page 8:



They clearly state that both Beringian lions and American lions were genetically different and that it the difference was so important that is possible that the presence of one presented a natural barrier to the other.


This is why we need to actually read the documents. All this statements are clearly ignored by lion-fans (like Asad) in the web, and it is more visible in Wikipedia. Nono


Quote    Reply   


Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#38 [url]

Feb 5 14 1:06 AM

Guate, the recent document about Panthera blytheae stated that the spelaea-atrox lineage had its genetic mutation from the leo lineage about 4.01 million years ago, it seems to be even more distant related to the previous suggestion.

What do you think about this?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help