Remove this ad

avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#162 [url]

Jan 25 14 10:44 AM

Since the Amur tiger is also a more evolved descendant of the Wanhsien tiger, while we can see the giant specimen such as Baikal.

Is possible that the Wanhsien tiger to produce the 400kg specimen to rival the Ngandong tiger?

Quote    Reply   

#163 [url]

Jan 25 14 10:51 AM

GrizzlyClaws wrote:
Since the Amur tiger is also a more evolved descendant of the Wanhsien tiger, while we can see the giant specimen such as Baikal.

Is possible that the Wanhsien tiger to produce the 400kg specimen to rival the Ngandong tiger?

The giant tiger skull on the private collection at China suggests it.

 

I mean, that is one of the largest skulls that I have ever seen. Surely, not less than 400 kg.

 


Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#164 [url]

Jan 25 14 11:00 AM

GuateGojira wrote:
GrizzlyClaws wrote:
Since the Amur tiger is also a more evolved descendant of the Wanhsien tiger, while we can see the giant specimen such as Baikal.

Is possible that the Wanhsien tiger to produce the 400kg specimen to rival the Ngandong tiger?

The giant tiger skull on the private collection at China suggests it.

 

I mean, that is one of the largest skulls that I have ever seen. Surely, not less than 400 kg.

 


Check the different set of the skull collection from the captive Amur tigers in the museum of Japan.

The top one seems to be a giant specimen for the captive Amur tiger.

mixz4ro.jpg
  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#169 [url]

Jan 26 14 8:03 PM

GuateGojira wrote:
GrizzlyClaws wrote:
Since the Amur tiger is also a more evolved descendant of the Wanhsien tiger, while we can see the giant specimen such as Baikal.

Is possible that the Wanhsien tiger to produce the 400kg specimen to rival the Ngandong tiger?

The giant tiger skull on the private collection at China suggests it.

 

I mean, that is one of the largest skulls that I have ever seen. Surely, not less than 400 kg.

 


It is a shame that the owner didn't even know the species of this giant skull, he thought it was a rhino skull and sold it for few bucks.

BTW, i think that Wanhsien tiger is as large as the Amur tiger, therefore it can also produce the largest possible genetic size limit of the Amur tiger, e.g Baikal.

Also, Wanhsien tiger is more primitive with proportionally larger skull than the modern Amur-Bengal.

  

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 26 14 10:31 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   

#170 [url]

Jan 30 14 8:37 AM

I can’t believe it!!! Nono  How did you know that? It is simply devastating for the science!!! Wth

 

Now about the size issue, I think that is completely plausible for the Wanhsien tiger to reach the extreme size of the Ngandong tigers, after all, it were they genes which give the huge size to the large Sunda tigers in the Pleistocene.

 

Thinking a little deeper, if we take the evidence like it is, the Amur tigers are the less related with the Wanhsien tiger of all the modern tiger subspecies (including those from the Sunda region). Remember that they evolved about 10,000 years when they invaded the Central Asia region via the Gansu Corridor (Silk Road), ranging from Anatolia to the Russian Far East and this range became discontinuous recently, within the last 200 years, probably through human agency (Driscoll et al., 2009).

 

So, why the large size in the Baikal tiger? Well, I think that the large size is not a particular characteristic of Amur tigers. If we see the pictures of some Bengal tigers in the old hunting literature, they show very large tigers like for example, the huge Bachelor of Powalgarh.

 

I believe that the large genes were always in all tiger populations, but habitat, climate and prey base modeled the morphology of the tiger, check this points:

 

1. Habitat: Amur and Bengal tigers, both in completely distant areas, reach the largest sizes, but the middle populations (Indochina and South China) are rater smaller. The heavy jungle of China and the Indochina region probably caused a diminish in tiger size (like Tigerluver stated) and taking in count that even a 140 kg Javanese tiger can kill a Banteng of 800 kg, it seems that size is not too crucial for the tiger as a predator. The woods of Russia and India are less closed and even Nepal, which have large grass areas, those with many trees are avoided by tigers. It seems that the “closed” areas are not the best habitat to develop large sizes. Even the Caspian region, which was closed only by the large grass, it had small wooded area and whit this, the tiger population in that area reached about the same size than the large specimens of India and Amur.

 

2. Climate: This is a great factor that had always affected mammals. Even when the Bergsman’s rule has been discredited in some circles, we can’t deny that northern animals tend to be larger than the southern ones. However, this seems more tied to the temperature than to the latitude. Amur tigers are without a question the largest tiger subspecies and are only matched by the Bengal ones, however not all Indian tigers are as large. For example, those from Hyderabad are barely larger than those from Indochina and Burma, those from Nagarahole-Bandipur region are long and tall but lighter than those from Central India and those from Sundarbans are as small as the Bali tigers. The champions are those of the Terai region (North India, Nepal, Bhutan and the Assam) with the real records coming from this area (Bandhavgarh tigers are large, but Kaziranga are HUGE).

 

3. Prey base: This seems to be fundamental to the develop of tiger populations, after all, Indochinese tigers are now very small compared with Bengals and they reproduction is much less than those of high prey density regions. However the tigers of Panna for example, which live with heavy chital deer (av. 50 kg) population and low large herbivores density, reach much large weights than those from Nagarahole-Bandipur with large populations of mega-herbivores like gaur and even elephants. The Amur tigers live in an area with smaller prey than that of Java, but even then, they are larger. Other thing is the adaptation: if you see the skull of an Amur tiger, they have larger muzzle and the largest sagital crest of all populations (together with the Caspian ones), which seems an adaptation to kill the heavy dangerous wild boars. This type of prey seems to produce larger skulls in Russian tigers than the Bengal ones. Even when the Bengal population has the longest skull record, the overall measurements of the longest Amur tiger skull recorded, proves that this specimen is larger and probably much heavier. Then, the head of Amur tigers is larger than those of the Bengal, Mazák stated that the head (with the flesh) constitute 1/5 of the head body length in the larger specimens.

 

Resuming, the giant genes are in all the tiger populations, but the habitat, climate and prey (although this with less degree) caused that only two populations produced large sizes. The Baikal tiger is probably one of the last examples of the past, but this could be also just a case of gigantism, just like the Jaipur tiger.

 

To put it simple, a tiger of 200-210 cm (head-body, no tail) is a large one, 211-221 cm is a huge one and up to 230-240 cm (like Baikal) is an exceptional and “one in a hundred” case. Weights are different, as it depends of the feeding, the exercise and the metabolism of each cat. Check that the large Shere Khan tiger weigh over 700 lb (also actually weighed) but it looks very fat, while Baikal weigh 850 lb and looks pretty muscular and exceptionally heavy.

 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#171 [url]

Jan 30 14 9:23 AM

The original link is gone, and this was quoted by a forum.

The report was full of speculation about the skull's species identity, some thought it was a tiger, some thought it was a sabertooth, while other even thought it was a rhino,

Obviously they didn't know it was simply a prehistoric tiger skull.

http://www.mala.cn/thread-1931605-1-1.html

And one thing is sure that this skull was accidentally discovered in a construction site by a worker, and it was only 100-200km away from the Pleistocene tiger fossil site inspected by Hooijer in 1947.

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 30 14 9:26 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#172 [url]

Jan 30 14 9:34 AM

I think Amur tiger is just as related to Wanhsien as to the other Mainland tiger subspecies, but they are just more evolved and altered in form compared to others who have retained the archaic form.

Quote    Reply   

#173 [url]

Jan 30 14 10:04 AM

Thanks for the link GrizzlyClaws.

 

Just one thing, check this paragraph:

在广元市文物管理所,记者见到了提着“怪物头骨”匆匆赶来的高先生,高先生从随手提的口袋里拿出了一块长约30厘米,宽约10厘米的棕色的兽头,兽头前端 可清晰的看见眼眶及牙床的轮廓,部分牙齿还在上面,兽头中间有个空洞,估计是鼻腔部位。高先生介绍,兽头另一侧的骨头是在挖掘的时候,自己不慎挖断的,而 且在挖掘的时候,泥土里边还散落的兽头的牙齿.”

 

Google translator gives me this result:

Heritage management in Guangyuan , the reporter saw the mention of " Monster Skull" Hastening Mr. Gao, Mr. Gao from readily mentioning pocket and pulled out a length of about 30 cm, width 10 cm brown beast , Shoutou front can clearly see the outline of the eyes and gums , and some teeth are still above the beast in the middle there is a hole , estimated to be the nasal area.

 

Is this correct? I mean, this skull actually measured only 30 cm in greatest length? This seems grossly incorrect to me.

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#174 [url]

Jan 30 14 10:15 AM

First of all, they didn't even know the proper species of this skull, so we can automatically discard the incorrect measurements.

The unknowledgeable people cannot conduct a proper measurement, just take Olf as an example, he didn't know how to properly measure his fossil jaw.

BTW, 30cm sounds more like the width to me.

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 30 14 10:35 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#175 [url]

Jan 30 14 10:23 AM

Thanks for the clarification. It is really sad that this huge and beautifully conserved skull is practically lost in private hands.

I going to make a crazy experiment. I will print the skull trying to fit the arm of the man in the picture with my own. Later, I will measure the Pm4 wide from the picture and I will try to fit it with known skulls and let's see what is the result.

I can't do more, except to estimate the zygomatic wide, by measuring the left arch and double the value.

Let's see what I found.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#176 [url]

Jan 30 14 10:27 AM

That would be interesting.

Considering that the average height of the Chinese men is about 172-173cm, Mr. Li is a middle age worker in the construction site, so he probably falls into this category of height.

Let's see what type of magical software could fully restore the size of this lost skull.

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 30 14 10:31 AM. Edited 6 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#177 [url]

Jan 30 14 10:51 AM

the giant skull: The owner misidentified it and sold it for few bucks.
the giant mandible: The owner has kept it, but he insisted it belongs to a cave lion.
many other skulls: The Chinese museums keep labelling them as saberthooth.

There is something wrong with the tiger fossil, and it seems that the abuse of tiger fossils has became a norm, especially in China. smiley: tired

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 30 14 10:54 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   

#178 [url]

Jan 30 14 10:57 AM

Rouge results

Jajajaja smiley: laugh, no magic software GrizzlyClaws, just a rouge estimation based in the picture. Here are my results, for the moment:

 

Wide of the upper Premolar 4:

a. Amur tiger: 21.3 mm.

b. Wanhsien tiger: 22.0 mm.

c. Panthera atrox: 22.9 mm.

d. Giant skull:

   * Right 32 mm.

   * Left 31 mm.

 

Zygomatic arches:

a. Amur tiger: 286 cm.

b. Panthera atrox: 304.3 mm.

c. Giant skull: c.320 cm (16 cm in the right side).

 

Check that the measurements may be distorted, as the frontal part is closer to the camera than the back one. I think that the Zygomatic arches are obviously the most reliable as is the closer measurement to the arm.

 

By the way, this estimated sizes depends greatly on the size of the man in the picture, after all, he could be larger or smaller than me. He looks more fat in comparison with my arm, so the Zygomatic wide could be slightly smaller.

 

My right arm measure c.6.5 cm in diameter at the wrist and c.9 cm in the middle of the arm (upper view). Don’t forget that I measure 175 cm in height, so you can make proper conversions.

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#179 [url]

Jan 30 14 11:03 AM

Well, a 320mm wide tiger skull is probably even bigger than the largest recorded Cromerian lion, no wonder they could even mistake it as a rhino skull.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#180 [url]

Jan 30 14 11:08 AM

BTW, maybe it is a 45-46cm skull, which matches the largest Amur skull in the captivity.

That Amur tiger with the 50cm head should be an ideal model for the Wanhsien tiger; slightly smaller than Baikal, about 300-330kg.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help