Remove this ad

Lead

Oct 29 13 3:18 AM

Tags : : , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a continuation of the topic on the old forum. Please feel free to re-post the information plus more to this topic smiley: smile

This is the address of the original topic: http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/3029/Body-size-of-the-Ngandong-tiger-Panthera-tigris-soloensis#.Urkwv_u0h8k


Last Edited By: GuateGojira Dec 24 13 9:54 AM. Edited 3 times

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:07 AM

Body size of the Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis)

From GuateGojira:


Data about the great Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) is fully accounted by Von Koenigswald (1933), however, at this time, I have been unable to found the original paper, which by the way, is in German. This is the paper:

 

Koenigswald, G. H. R. Von, 1933. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der fossilen Wirbeltiere Javas. Wet. Meded. Dienst Mijnb. Ned. Ind., no. 23, 184 pp., 28 pis.

 

Maybe Peter could be able to found it, but he was not here anymore, sadly.

 

Now, the next two documents quote the measurements of only two parts of the fossils, the skull and the humerus. So, here we go.

1. Skull:

Brongersman (1935) made an excellent account of fossils of Panthera tigris trinilensis and Panthera tigris oxignata, however he made a little quote about the skull of a specimen of P. t. soloensis, regarding the ratio existing between the greatest length of the skull and the zygomatic width. Check that the name Feliopsis palaeojavanica is invalid and is know now as P. t. soloensis (Mazák, 2010). Here is the full account:

 

“Feliopsis palaeojavanica was described by Stremme (1911a, p. 56; 1911 b, p. 86, pl. 16 figs. 3, 4, pl. 17 fig. 1) from rather scanty remains. More complete specimens were studied by Von Koenigswald (1933, p. 6) who arrived at the conclusion that the genus Feliopsis could not be separated from the genus Felis in its wider sense. Von Koenigswald compared the fossil specimens to different species and subspecies: Panthera tigris sondaica (Temm.), Panthera tigris tigris (L.), Panthera leo (L.) and Panthera leo spelaea (Goldfuss). In the first place this author compared the ratio existing between the greatest length of the skull and the zygomatic width. This ratio is calculated by him to two points of decimals, but I believe this to be unnecessary as the greatest length of the fossil skull examined by Von Koenigswald is not exactly known. The greatest length actually measured is 373 mm, but according to Von Koenigswald 15 or 20 mm must be added for the part of the occiput which was broken off; in his calculations, however, he used 380 mm for the greatest length, thus adding only 7 mm. The ratio calculated from this measurement (380 mm) is 1.58 (in Von Koenigswald's paper it is given as 1.52; small differences are also found between some of the other calculations made by this author and those made by me) ; if we do add 15 mm to the greatest length actually measured, the ratio becomes 1.61, and if 20 mm is added it becomes 1.63.”

 

Source: http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/149407

 

A direct approach shows that the only “more or less” full skull of the Ngandong tiger is incomplete, and is estimated a greatest length of 388 – 393 mm. The zygomatic wide is probably of c.250 mm, if we use the ratio of 1.52 which is the original figure given by Koenigswald, which work with the original fossils. In this fashion, I believe that this skull had a greatest length of 390 mm and a zygomatic wide of 250 cm. It is slightly larger than the largest Amur tiger skull reported by Mazák (1981; GL 383 mm, ZW 268 mm) and among the largest tiger skulls in record. However, we must remember that other fossils are even larger (although there are more fragmentary) and until I can found the original paper of Koenigswald, I can’t give more details.

 

2. Humerus:

The next came from Hooijer (1947), which work with Chinese tigers from the Pleistocene, including the now famous Panthera tigris acutidense. Here is the account:

 

“The measurements given by von Koenigswald (1933, p. 12) indicate the presence of still larger specimens in the Pleistocene of Java. One humerus is even stated to have a greatest length of 381 mm., others 353 mm., which is about the maximum I found in the lion (No. 5: 352 mm.) and that in a fossil humerus from Chou Kou Tien (Teilhard de Chardin, 1936, p. 15: 355 mm.). In P. tigris altaica (Temminck) the maximum length is 328 mm., and in the other recent tiger humeri it is 311 mm. at the most.”


 Source: http://digitallibrary.amn...nov/N1346.pdf?sequence=1


To understand the size of this humerus, I quote the first table in the first post of this topic:

http://animalsversesanima...ta---weight--tige?page=1


See that of Christiansen& Harris in 2005. The largest tiger (CN5697) had a humerus length of  372.5 mm. Check that this is also the largest humerus in the list.  In the second table, of 2007, this same tiger have a shoulder height of 120 cm, so is possible to make a rough estimation and state that a tiger with an humerus of 381 mm would be slightly taller, maybe c.125 cm, which is about the same shoulder height of P. atrox.

 

3. Analysis:

Using these two fossils, from two distinct specimens, is possible to achieve an idea of how large was P. t. soloensis. The skull was just slightly larger, but even this specimen could be relative larger than modern Amur tigers, which have a maximum head-body length of 208 cm in straight line (Kerley et al., 2005). If can be assumed that the head-body length of a great cat is about five times its greatest skull length (based in a single specimen of Panthera atrox), the estimated head-body length for this specimen of P. t. soloensis could be of 195 cm (390 * 5 = 1950 mm) in the skeleton. However, Christiansen & Harris (2007) state that the average difference of the head-body length measured in the skeleton and the flesh, in tigers, is of 37.1 cm (n=3), here is the calculation:

 

                        HB-flesh        HB-skeleton             Diference

CN5698:        2040 mm       1653.3 mm               386.7 mm

CN5697:        2060 mm       1636.5 mm               423.5 mm

CN6049:        1950 mm       1647.0 mm               303.0 mm

Average: 371.1 mm or 37.1 cm.  

 

Then, based in this result, the head-body length, in the flesh, of this particular P. t. soloensis would be of 232 cm. This is a bit higher, and most be taken in count that the relation “skull length-body length” is based in a single specimen. A large male Bengal tiger with a greatest skull length of 381 mm, had a head-body length of 213 cm “between pegs” (Ward, 1914; Brakefield, 1993); this gives a ratio “skull length-body length” of 5.6, flesh included. Based in this, the head-body length of this specimen of P. t. soloensis could be of 218.4 cm, a more reliable figure as is based in a real specimen, not reconstructed skeletons. It is necessary to make more comparisons, but even then, it is show that this particular specimen was relative longer than modern tigers.

 

About the humerus of 381 mm, it was obtained a simple relation between “humerus length-shoulder height”. Based in both tables of Christiansen & Harris of 2005 and 2007, it can be calculate that the average ratio for tigers is of 3.12, here is the data:

                        H-length        S-height        Ratio

CN5697:        372.5 mm /    1200 mm       = 3.22

CN6049:        360.5 mm /    1180 mm       = 3.27

CN5698:        350.0 mm /    1000 mm       = 2.86

Average: 3.12

 

So, it can be estimate a shoulder height of c.119 cm. for the humerus of 381 mm, based in an average ratio of 3.12 (with the maximum ratio, the height will be of c.125 cm).

 

4. Conclusion:

Although the comparative data is based in only to pieces, is possible to achieve a relative good idea of how large was the Ngandong tiger:

 

* Skull: 390 mm GL and 250 mm ZW.

* Humerus length: 381 mm.

* Estimated head-body length: 218 – 232 cm (depending of the method).

* Estimated shoulder height: 119 cm.

 

About the weight, I can’t make any direct estimation as I don’t have the diameter of the humerus or the condylobasal length of the skull, however, it is known that the largest tigers (that reached this body sizes) weighed from 260 to 320 kg, so is plausible to estimate an average weight of 290 – 300 kg for these specimens of P. t. soloensis (remember that larger, although fragmentary fossils, exist).

 

I will appreciate any educated comment or even better, if someone can found the original document of Koenigswald.

Well, based in facts, the Smilodon populator is the real champion of the cats in the weight issue. I have found this document (check table 1):

http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app51/app51-407.pdf

 

The data on it is based in the weight estimation of Christiansen & Harris (2005), so the average is reliable. According with this, the average weight for Smilodon populator was 304.45 kg (range 220-400 kg), the largest on record. However, check that this average includes male and female specimens together. For comparison, the average weight for modern Bengal tiger would be of 162.9 kg (males of 200.4 and females of 125.4 kg; according with my data). Modern lions would be of 150 kg (males of 175 and females of 125 kg; the figure for males is from my data, the figure from females is from Yamaguchi).

 

About Macairodus kabir, yes, its weight was inflated as it was used the formula of Anyonge (1993). However its fossils are large and it was possible that it were of the same weight that the largest Pantherines, but surely lighter than the S. populator.

 

Finally, about the size of the fragmented fossils of Panthera tigris soloensis, I have no idea of the size, just the descriptions of Brongersman (1935), Hooijer (1947) and now Hooijer (1949), which I have found here:

http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/117/1178933675.pdf

 

Check that he states that in the Pleistocene Java AND Sumatra have been found fossils of the same size that the modern Indian tiger. He also states that the  Wanshien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidense) was as large as the recent Indian subspecies, BUT its metapodials were more massive than those of the recent tiger; “a character which the Plesitocene Chinese tiger has in common with the fossil tiger from Siberia described by Tscherski (1892).

 

To understand what this means, we must remember that the metapodials are the long bones of the hand (metacarpals) and feet (metatarsals) which connect the digits to the centers. In humans, five are present in each hand and foot. This bones support much of the weight of the animal.

 

With this evidence we can establish that if this bones are more massive in P. t. acutidense than in the modern Indian tiger (weight from 170-260 kg), it seems that, even when they were of the same size (like state Kitchener (1999), they were obviously heaver, possible reaching up to 300 kg or more, like the 1900-1940 Manchurian tigers.

 

The document says more: “The metapodials of the Javan Pleistocene tiger are more slender than those of the Pleistocene continental tiger”. This “Pleistocene tiger” was surely the “Punung tiger”, which was much smaller than P. t. soloensis and was possibly the direct antecessor of the modern Javan tiger (Panthera sondaica sondaica; according with Mazák and Groves (2006)), which according with Hertler & Volmer (2008), weighed between 140 and 189 kg. Is important to mention than these weights were estimated in base of Van Valkenburgh (1990), which use dentition and skull measurements, instead of limb dimensions (for details see Volmer (2005)).

 

This paragraph from Mazák and Groves (2006) is very interesting:

“The evolution of mainland and Javanese tigers was summarized in a diagram by Groves (1992), who argued that the Late Pleistocene ancestor of the modern Javan tiger, P. t. soloensis, was completely different from its Early/Middle Pleistocene predecessors (which it presumably replaced), and already had the modern Javan form’s high M1 index and narrow occiput. The evidence indicates that the now extinct Javan tiger must also be assigned to a distinct species, Panthera sondaica, and to which the Ngandong tiger also belongs.”

 

In other words, it seems that the tiger present in Java (Panthera tigris oxygnatha) was replaced by the new arrival of the continental tiger at the Sonda shelf (possible descendents of Panthera tigris acutidense). The result of this replacement (or mix) was P. t. soloensis (or better, Panthera sondaica soloensis), with the large size but with some characteristics of the already present Pleistocene Javan tigers (described by Mazák & Groves (2006)). With time, the large size disappeared, given place to a new form and more specialized species of cat, the modern Sonda tiger (Panthera sondaica).

 

Is interesting to mention that Groves state that P. t. oxignata was more primitive than P. t. trinilensis, but the strata and the fossil’s age shows otherwise (Aziz et al. 1995; Meijaard, 2004).

 

So, we can estimate the size of Panthera tigris soloensis and Panthera tigris acutidense more or less accurately, but until we can found the original paper of Koenigswald (1933), I can only use the two fossils described in this topic (the skull and humerus).

 

Again, here is the name of the document, if someone can found it, will be EXCELENT!!!

* Koenigswald, G. H. R. Von, 1933. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der fossilen Wirbeltiere Javas. Wet. Meded. Dienst Mijnb. Ned. Ind., no. 23, 184 pp., 28 pis.

Incredibly, but this seems right. Check that the best weight estimation (Wheeler & Jeferson, 2009) for the female Panthera atrox estate an average of 178 kg (N= 32; range 142-210 kg). It is larger than any modern female cat, but not as large as those from males. It seems that the sexual dimorphism was stronger in the prehistoric specimens.

 

For comparison, the skulls of the Eurasian steppe lion (Panthera leo spelaea) were of the same size than modern African lionesses. So, they were no larger, only males were 8-10% larger than modern lions.

 

The bear dogs (like Anphicyon ingens) were indeed larger and heavier than any modern or prehistoric cat. Check the fossils, they were massive. These animals surpassed the mark of 500 kg and I even think that our best great cats were no match for them in a single combat.

Panthera leo spelaea, or steppe Eurasian lion, like Dr Diedrich says, is regarded as been 8-10% larger than modern lions (Patterson, 2004). The largest skull at this day measured 420 cm in greatest length (Diedrich, 2007) [it came from Siegsdorf, Germany], which is about the same size that the largest modern African lions. Wikipedia, in French, mention a skull of 430 cm from England, but don’t quote ANY sources for it.

 

Here is a list of all the skulls of P. l. spelaea that I have found:

 

Specimen

Greatest length (mm)

Condylobasal length (mm)

Zygomathic wide (mm)

Source

MCSNB 5127 (♀)

324.2

295.6

225.1

Bona, 2005

Pocala 25260

370

354

264

Pocala 25262 (♀?)

311

311

225

Pocala 1929, U Bologna

360

253

AZE.K.13.29

417.4

368.6

283.4

Gailenrenth

362

276

Herm

350

245

Cajarc

393

350

265

Vence

354

320

241

K-1, Kondakovka Kolyma

345.1

326.2

249

Sotnikova & Nikolskiy, 2005

IPBPS-1, Duvannyi Yar, Kolyma

359.4

GIN-1123, Smolensk Russ. Plain

360

328

238.2

Beroun skull (♀)

302

Diedrich, 2007

Srbsko Chlum-Komín (♀)

305

German Perick Caves (♀)

302

Arrikrutz

380

Siegsdorf

420

Sandford Hill Cave

231

Dawkins et al., 1866

Hotton Cave

336

234

Sundwig Brithis Museum (♀?)

304

Vence (Alpes-maritimes)

360

Wikipedia (French), 2011 *

England

430

* This skulls are quoted with no reference, so they are unreliable.

♀ Specimens estimated to be females.

 

As you can see, they were just slightly larger than modern lions. Dr Diedrich shows many images and pictures of real complete skeletons of this great cat. I will put all of them here (even when this is not a topic about this cat) to show they sizes, this is thanks that Dr Diedrich put a size bar with all of them.

 

About the weight, based in skull and bone sizes, I estimate that this “lions” weighed the same than modern Bengal tigers, which is about 170-260 kg.

 

The Beringian lions (Panthera leo vereschagini) were slightly smaller than it Eurasian relative (Kurtén, 1985), so is possible that they were of the same size than modern African lion, with weighs of 130-240 kg.

 

This is my appreciation based in real fossils and not popular myths and web-pages.



 

Last Edited By: GuateGojira Dec 24 13 3:45 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:11 AM

Also, according to what I've researched, Java was not an island in the Pleistocene. It was still connected to the mainland of Asia. Here is a map of Southeast Asia in the Pleistocene:

image

This map is the ancient Sonda shelf, which was a huge landscape full of large animals large deers, rhinos, buffaloes, etc., which are still present in tiger territory, especially in India were larger tigers live.

 

By the way, taking a review on the estimated weight for Panthera tigris soloensis in Hertler & Volmer (2008) and Volmer (2005), I have found that although some estimations were based in limb bones using the formula of Anyonge (1993), the others were estimated using dental and skull material using formulas of Van Valkenburg (1990). Both documents use different figures, so I will post here those from Volmer (2005) as they are the only that estate which bone was used. Here are the results.

 

Fossil                                      Weight (kg)     Formula

MfdexC,(P3),(P4),M1            129.93             Van Valkenburg (1990)

Ukdex+sinC,P3,P4,M1(2X)   146.44             Van Valkenburg (1990)

Mf sin,(C),P3,P4,M1              226.58             Van Valkenburg (1990)

Calvarium (skull)                    252.66             Van Valkenburg (1990)

Femur                                     478.6               Anyonge (1993)

Humerus                                353.42             Anyonge (1993)

Humerus                                278.31             Anyonge (1993)

 

The problem with this estimations is that the formulas of Van Valkenburg (1990), that use dental and cranial elements, tend to underestimate the weight of carnivores. On the other side, the formulas of Anyonge (1993) overestimate the weight. Both of this formulas use a base of weights from “literature” and not from real specimens, like Christiansen & Harris (2005).

 

This is from Hertler & Volmer (2008): “We estimated body mass six times on single complete skeletons of recent tiger, leopard, striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), and dhole, using a different skeletal measurement for each estimate (Van Valkenburgh, 1990; Anyonge, 1993). The measurements were length of the lower carnassial (M1L), total skull length (SKL), femoral length (FL), femoral circumference (FC), humerus length (HL) and humerus circumference (HC). The deviation of each element specific estimate from the average of all six estimates was determined and used to construct a set of six element specific correction factors for each species.”      

 

I can speculate that the skull (calvarium) used here is the skull described by Koenigwald (1933) and in that case, the body mass based in the formula of Van Valkenburg (1990) would be of 252.66 kg. However, is important to take in count that this formula, together with those that use dental material, underestimate the real weight, so my estimation of 290-300 kg is still plausible.

1. Body size of the tiger, based in Greatest Skull Length:

My first method to estimate the body length of a tiger is using the greatest skull length, which is by far, the most used skull measurement in both hunting and scientific records. The body measurement that I search is the length, in straight line, from the premaxilia of the upper mandible to the first caudal vertebrae. This distance resembles the head-body length established in Nowell & Jackson (1996), which is from the nose to the beginning of the tail.

 

I compare 8 complete tiger skeletons with a scale bar based in the full length of the skull. Here are the images:

image

 

The large skeletons (No. 1 to 4) have a body-skull relation of 5, in other words, we need five skulls to get the head-body length in the skeleton. However, the more slender skeletons (No. 5 to 8), including a female in the No. 6, give a relation of up to 5.5. I estimate that the skull lengths of females (which are more small and slender than males) are smaller in relation to the body than males.

 

Based on this, using the relation of 5 and the skull length of 390 cm for the P. t. soloensis specimen, I can calculate a head-body length of 195 cm in the skeleton.

 

Now based in the average difference of 37.1 cm (n=3) between the HB-skeleton and HB-in-flesh, in the specimens of Christianse & Adolfssen (2007), the head-body length of this specimen, in the flesh, is of c.232 cm. taken in straight line.

 

Here is the data of the difference:

http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/3029/Body-size-of-the-Ngandong-tiger-Panthera-tigris-soloensis#.TxNbk4FnMng

 

This size seem to be reliable for a large specimen, taking in count that the largest modern tigers have reached up to 220 cm measured between pegs. However, we must take in count that like any image comparison, there is some degree of error that could be applied.

tigerluver:

Great analysis Guate.

Well, this is what I tried to find the weight of a tiger with that body length using Sauraha's dimensions.

Here are the calculations:

272 kg/197 cm = 1.38 kg/cm

So every cm accounts for an average of .72 kg of weight in the cat.

Thus, using basic stoichiometry:

(1.38 kg/cm) * (232 cm) = 320 kg

Then, I also found the chest girth using Sauraha's as the base:

140 cm/ 197 cm = .71 

.71 * 232 cm = 164.87 cm chest girth

Next, I see if the chest girth value corresponds to the weight given solely looking at body length.

272 kg/ 140 cm = 1.94

1.94 * 164.87 = 319.84 kg approx.

So according to what I have found using Sauraha as a model the specimen is around 320 kg. 

Do the dimensions seem right for a weight of this value?

2. Body size of the tiger, based in Condylobasal length:

 

The second method to estimate the body length of a tiger is using the condylobasal length. In this case, direct measurements are already present in literature.

 

The database that I will use is that of Christiansen & Adolfssen (2007):

 

                        CB-length       HB-flesh         HB-skeleton   Ratio C-F        Ratio C-S

CN5698:         350.9mm         2040 mm         1653.3 mm      5.81                 4.71

CN5697:         334.2mm         2060 mm         1636.5 mm      6.16                 4.90

CN6049:         337.8mm         1950 mm         1647.0 mm      5.77                 4.88

                                                                       Average          5.91                 4.83

 

The problem with this estimation is that only scientific sources state Condylobasal lengths. For that reason, I compile several skull measurements from tigers of the subspecies of Amur (Mazák, 1967), Bengal and Indochinese (Pocock, 1939).

 

Here are my tables, separated by sex and region.

GSL = Greatest Skull Length

CBL = Condilobasal Length

ZW =  Zygomatic wide

ML =   Mandibular length

 



Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica)


Source: Mazák, 1967.






 

Male

 

Female

No.

GSL

CBL

ZW

ML

Ratio

No.

GSL

CBL

ZW

ML

Ratio

GSL-CBL

GSL-ZW

GSL-ML

GSL-CBL

GSL-ZW

GSL-ML

1

371

322.5

261

241.5

1.15

1.42

1.54

1

292.5

266.3

196

-

1.10

1.49

-

2

331

291

220

219

1.14

1.50

1.51

2

310.2

-

203.6

-

-

1.52

-

3

-

308

232.5

226.5

-

-

-

3

297.2

268

202.4

198

1.11

1.47

1.50

4

361.8

322.8

246.4

235

1.12

1.47

1.54

4

303.5

273.4

193.7

200.4

1.11

1.57

1.51

5

364

326.5

247.5

244

1.11

1.47

1.49

5

298.5

268.2

192.3

198

1.11

1.55

1.51

6

335

302.5

238

219

1.11

1.41

1.53

6

295.6

264.5

194

193

1.12

1.52

1.53

7

383

342

268

260

1.12

1.43

1.47

7

-

-

196

194.5

-

-

-

8

378

339

258

256

1.12

1.47

1.48

8

298

270.4

198.7

201.8

1.10

1.50

1.48

Mean

360.5

319.3

246.4

237.6

1.12

1.45

1.51

9

279.7

252.2

190

188

1.11

1.47

1.49









Mean

296.9

266.1

196.3

196.2

1.11

1.51

1.50

 



Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris)


Source: Pocock, 1939.






 

Male

 

Female

No.

GSL

CBL

ZW

ML

Ratio

No.

GSL

CBL

ZW

ML

Ratio

GSL-CBL

GSL-ZW

GSL-ML

GSL-CBL

GSL-ZW

GSL-ML

1

375

330

260

250

1.14

1.44

1.50

1

309

272

202

197

1.14

1.53

1.57

2

365

322

250

240

1.13

1.46

1.52

2

302

265

197

194

1.14

1.53

1.56

3

357

313

271

243

1.14

1.32

1.47

3

300

268

198

202

1.12

1.52

1.49

4

355

311

240

232

1.14

1.48

1.53

4

290

256

187

189

1.13

1.55

1.53

5

342

307

240

227

1.11

1.43

1.51

5

271

250

185

185

1.08

1.46

1.46

6

340

303

254

235

1.12

1.34

1.45

Mean

294.4

262.2

193.8

193.4

1.12

1.52

1.52

7

338

305

236

230

1.11

1.43

1.47









8

333

293

256

225

1.14

1.30

1.48









9

332

286

225

216

1.16

1.48

1.54









Mean

348.6

307.8

248.0

233.1

1.13

1.41

1.50









 



Indochinese tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti)

Source: Pocock, 1939.






 

Male

 

Female

No.

GSL

CBL

ZW

ML

Ratio

No.

GSL

CBL

ZW

ML

Ratio

GSL-CBL

GSL-ZW

GSL-ML

GSL-CBL

GSL-ZW

GSL-ML

1

336

302

236

226

1.11

1.42

1.49

1

294

265

194

192

1.11

1.52

1.53

2

324

282

225

210

1.15

1.44

1.54

2

293

262

191

195

1.12

1.53

1.50

3

317

274

210

205

1.16

1.51

1.55

3

284

252

200

189

1.13

1.42

1.50

Mean

325.7

286.0

223.7

213.7

1.14

1.46

1.53

4

282

251

203

189

1.12

1.39

1.49









Mean

288.3

257.5

197.0

191.3

1.12

1.46

1.51

 

* * *

Average figures







Males

GSL

CBL

ZW

ML

GSL-CBL

GSL-ZW

GSL-ML

P. t. altaica

360.5

319.3

246.4

237.6

1.12

1.45

1.51

P. t. tigris

348.6

307.8

248.0

233.1

1.13

1.41

1.50

P. t. corbetti

325.7

286.0

223.7

213.7

1.14

1.46

1.53

Average

344.9

304.4

239.4

228.1

1.13

1.44

1.51



Females



GSL

CBL

ZW

ML

GSL-CBL

GSL-ZW

GSL-ML

P. t. altaica

296.9

266.1

196.3

196.2

1.11

1.51

1.50

P. t. tigris

294.4

262.2

193.8

193.4

1.12

1.52

1.52

P. t. corbetti

288.3

257.5

197.0

191.3

1.12

1.46

1.51

Average

293.2

261.9

195.7

193.6

1.12

1.50

1.51

 

Many analyses can be made from these results. As this last table shows, the Relation GSL-CBL in females is slightly smaller than in males, which means that the skull of the females have relative larger Condylobasal length than males, in relation with its sizes. It also seems important to mention that the Relation GSL-ML is the same in males and females. In this case, if we accept the hypothesis that the huge mandible fossil of China is a tiger, then we can use the relation of 1.51 to get the calculated greatest skull length.

 

Assuming that the skull of Panthera tigris soloensis was a male, we can use the ratio of 1.13 with the GSL of 390 cm that I estimated for the specimen. The result is a Condylobasal length of 345.1 mm. In this case, the next step is simple:

 

CB-length       HB-flesh         HB-skeleton   Ratio C-F        Ratio C-S

CN5698:         350.9mm         2040 mm         1653.3 mm      5.81                 4.71

CN5697:         334.2mm         2060 mm         1636.5 mm      6.16                 4.90

CN6049:         337.8mm         1950 mm         1647.0 mm      5.77                 4.88

Ngandong       345.1mm        2039 mm        1666.8 mm

 

Based in this study, the body size of the Ngandong tiger was of 204 cm, which is the same that the longest Bengal tiger in scientific record (Male T-03; Karanth, 1993) and is much smaller than the size estimated in the previous study. However the limits are between 199 – 213 cm. This upper limit seems much reliable as the longest tiger in record (322 cm in total length, 213 cm in head-body length) had a greatest skull length of 381 cm (Ward, 1914).

 

Analyzing this great tiger, the condylobasal length of the skull is calculated at 337 mm, which means that this particular tiger have a ratio of Condylobasal-Head-body length of 6.32, somewhat larger than the captive specimens stated by Dr Christiansen. If we use this large ratio, head-body length of the Ngandong tiger could be of 218 cm, which seems more reliable for an animal of such large skull.

 

Is important to found more specimens to make a more reliable estimation, but for the moment, this data suggest that the head-body length of this specimen was of 204 – 218 cm.

 

Pd. The largest tiger hunted by Dunbar Brander had a head-body length of 221 cm, although its total length was of just 303 cm. This means that this tiger is the longest specimen in record. However, as Brander don’t present any skull measurement, is impossible to use it in this analysis.






Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:13 AM

Regarding the Size & Measurements of Ngandong tiger Femur & Humerus

These are the measurements given in the German document "Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Fossilen Wirbeltiere Javas Teil I. Wetenschappelijke Mededeelingen - Dienst Mijnbouw Nederlansch-Indië, 23.1", by von Koenigswald, G.H.R., 1933;  (page 12) :

                                                Femur              Humerus

Total Length/mm                   480                   381

Proximal Diameters/mm

- Transverse                            94                    82

- Sagittal (AP)                         59                    112

Distal Diameters/mm

- Transverse                            88                    102

- Sagittal (AP)                         82                    70

Hope these data are helpful in your calculations.

 

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:15 AM

This information is simple GOLD!!!



The largest femur for a tiger (Amur subspecies) in Christiansen & Harris (2005), is of 429.5 mm, while for a lion is of 401.0 mm. The longest femur reported by Merriam & Stock (1932) for Panthera atrox is of 460 mm (2907–R-3). Although is important to make an accurate comparison with all the other measurements, at least in total length, it seems that Panthera tigris soloensis is on the edge. However, we must take in count that the “great” difference is of just 2 cm, which is practically insignificant is such a large specimens. I have no data about Panthera leo fossilis (or the largest spelaea), but I will like to see an image or a document about it (no simple words please, as I can’t used them for comparison). The specimens presented by Dr Driedich are no larger than modern lions, according with the escalation that he presents in his documents.




In the case of the lack of robustness (according with WaveRiders) of the large femur of P. t. soloensis, I could hypothesize that this could be a large but very old male. The base of this speculation is the fact that all the modern tigers that get old and in many cases, defeated in territorial battles, began to lose weight and ends very skinny and with fragile and slender bones (check the photos of Charger and B2 at the moment of they dead). This is just a Hypothesis, but based in the modern ecology of the tiger.



About the zygomatic wide, it seems that WaveRiders is right, as I use the relation of Koenigswald, but it seems that the figure of Brongersman is more accurate. However, it must be mentioned that the skull is broken and compressed, so the zygomatic measurement don’t reflect its real size in life. I estimate a real zygomatic wide of 250-260 cm, but I will make a GSL-ZG comparison directly on Sonda tigers to estimate its relation. Brongerman make one, but I will like to calculate my own. I will post all this data soon.



WaveRiders said: “However, the Femur evidently belonged to another individual and the large Mandible with the broken anterorior end of the symphisis provide by the same author likely belonged to a third individual (in my opinion somewhat intermedium between the previous two). However, it is not possible to rule out this may not be the case. The largest individual was without a doubt the one to which the long femur belonged to. In my opinion no modern tiger is able to reach the size of that individual unless scientifically proven differently.”



According with him, there are at least three specimens, and the smaller one is that of the skull. It seems that my previous estimations are in the lower level, and that this tiger could be a bit larger than what we previously thought.



Finally, about the skull size, I use the figure of c.390 mm as is the average of the estimation of Dr. Koenigswald. However, this size is by no way the largest in tiger record, as Bengal specimens of 400 mm (Ward, 1914) and even up to 412.8 mm (Hewett, 1938) has been recorded. So, I think that 390 mm is by no way exceptional and as WaveRiders accept, is a very useful estimation, based in modern tiger skulls.



So, according with all the data posted in this topic, most of the remains suggest than Panthera tigris soloensis was slightly longer and more robust than the modern Bengal-Amur tigers, in the case of males and females.



About the very old Trinil tiger, as far I know, was a small form of tiger, about the same size than modern Javanese tigers, so don’t surprise me that the bones were no larger.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:18 AM

Well, Panthera tigris soloensis was and is a good rival of Panthera atrox, but the largest problem is the lack of fossils. I mean, there are, at least, ten specimens of P. t. soloensis, while there are almost 100 specimens of Panthera atrox. Is possible that the largest P. t. soloensis specimens were not even recorded. The same could be applied for P. atrox, but as the sample is much larger, is surer than the largest specimens of this species are already represented in the sample.

 

I will like to see at least one image of the fossils of Panthera tigris soloensis, sadly, I have not found any of them in the internet. smiley: frown

 

Now, about the size of the humerus and the femur of Panthera atrox, here is the data of Merriam & Stock (1932):

image

image

 
tigerluver:
image

GuateIf I am reading this chart correctly isn't the femur of the Ngandong tiger more robust than modern day tigers?


1. Measurements of the fossilis of Panthera tigris soloensis:

These are the length measurements that I have found, together with those posted by Jeawee (Limb bones) and WaveRriders (Basal length).

 

Greatest skull length: 373 mm broken, estimated at 388-393 mm.

Basal length: 318 mm.

Humerus length: 381 mm.

Femur length: 480 mm.

 

I previously estimated a GSL of c.390 mm, however, now that I have the real basal length of the skull (thanks to WaveRiders), is possible to make a more accurate estimation of the size. Here are the tables of Amur, Bali and NOW Sumatran and Javanese specimens (these last two thanks to peter posts); I can’t use Bengal specimens as Pocock doesn’t give any basal length in his document of 1939. I will use only male specimens, as we hypothesize that this skull was from a male. The main measurement will be the Basal length; however I will present all the other measurements for future comparisons.

 

BL=     Basal Lenght

GSL = Greatest Skull Length

CBL = Condilobasal Length

ZW =   Zygomatic wide

 




Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica)


 

Male

No.

BL

GSL

CBL

ZW

Ratio

BL-GSL

BL-CBL

BL-ZW

1

302.5

371

322.5

261

1.23

1.07

1.16

2

280.7

331

291

220

1.18

1.04

1.28

3

288.4

-

308

232.5

-

1.07

1.24

4

303.7

361.8

322.8

246.4

1.19

1.06

1.23

5

308

364

326.5

247.5

1.18

1.06

1.24

6

279

335

302.5

238

1.20

1.08

1.17

7

316.2

383

342

268

1.21

1.08

1.18

8

312

378

339

258

1.21

1.09

1.21

Mean

298.8

360.5

319.3

246.4

1.20

1.07

1.21

Source: Mazák, 1967.






 




Sumatran tiger (Panthera sumatrae)


 

Male

No.

BL

GSL

CBL

ZW

Ratio

BL-GSL

BL-CBL

BL-ZW

1

-

325

282

229

-

-

-

2

-

309

-

206

-

-

-

3

260

345

-

220

1.33

-

1.18

4

240

305

-

200

1.27

-

1.20

5

-

335

-

230

-

-

-

6

270.5

326

285

219.5

1.21

1.05

1.23

7

244

290

-

187

1.19

-

1.30

8

245

286

262.5

196.5

1.17

1.07

1.25

9

-

-

-

255.5

-

-

-

10

248

297

263

201

1.20

1.06

1.23

Mean

251.3

313.1

273.1

214.5

1.23

1.06

1.23

Source: Sody, 1949.







 




Javanese tiger (Panthera sondaica sondaica)

 

Male

No.

BL

GSL

CBL

ZW

Ratio

BL-GSL

BL-CBL

BL-ZW

1

285

349

303

246

1.22

1.06

1.16

2

274

331

294

228

1.21

1.07

1.20

3

273

326

-

221

1.19

-

1.24

4

271

328

-

241

1.21

-

1.12

5

-

330

289.5

241

-

-

-

6

255

316

-

231

1.24

-

1.10

7

-

315

-

220

-

-

-

8

-

322

284.5

226

-

-

-

9

-

335

297

233.5

-

-

-

10

-

317.5

279.5

226

-

-

-

11

-

321

284

212.7

-

-

-

12

-

309

272

205.5

-

-

-

Mean

271.6

325.0

287.9

227.6

1.22

1.07

1.16

Source: Sody, 1949.







 




Bali tiger (Panthera sondaica balica)


 

Male

No.

BL

GSL

CBL

ZW

Ratio

BL-GSL

BL-CBL

BL-ZW

1

248.7

297.6

267.3

210.7

1.20

1.07

1.18

2

248

295

266.5

202.7

1.19

1.07

1.22

3

258

312

279

218

1.21

1.08

1.18

Mean

251.6

301.5

270.9

210.5

1.20

1.08

1.20

Source: Mazák et al., 1977; Buzás & Farkas, 1996




 

* * *

Average figures








Males

BL

GSL

CBL

ZW

BL-GSL

BL-CBL

BL-ZW

P. t. altaica

298.8

360.5

319.3

246.4

1.20

1.07

1.21

P. sumatrae

251.3

313.1

273.1

214.5

1.23

1.06

1.23

P. sondaica sondaica

271.6

325.0

287.9

227.6

1.22

1.07

1.16

P. sondaica balica

251.6

301.5

270.9

210.5

1.20

1.08

1.20

Average

268.3

325.0

287.8

224.7

1.21

1.07

1.20

 

Using the ratios obtained in the skull comparisons, the results based in Amur tigers give contradictory data, as the resulted skull measurements are smaller than the largest skull measured for Mazák (1967), despite the fact that the fossil is larger overall than this large Amur male. For the Javanese tigers, the estimated size is the most reliable, as the Paleontologist that have studied the skull had found that the Ngandong specimen have all the characteristics of the modern Javanese tigers (Mazák and Groves, 2006) and the results practically fit in my estimation of c.390 mm. Is important to mention that the Javanese skulls are wider (in relation with de Basal length) than those from the Amur region, this is the possible reason why the skull of the Amur tiger (together with the Caspian tiger) have the strongest sagital crest of all tigers, while the wider Javanese tiger have a much smaller sagital crest.

 

Here are the results applying the ratios on the Ngandong skull:

 

P. t. altaica

P. sumatrae

P. s. sondaica

P. s. balica

Average

GSL

382

391

388

382

385.8

CBL

340

337

340

343

340.0

BL

318

318

318

318

318.0

ZW

263

258.5

274

265

265.1

 

The result shows that the estimated GSL range from 382-391 cm, with an average of c.386 mm. This seems reliable in base of the provided Basal length. Using only the ratio from the Javanese tigers, the GSL is of 388 mm, which is slightly more than the overall average. The condylobasal length result to be slightly smaller than that of the largest Amur skull, however the zygomathic wide, based only on the Javanese tigers is of 274 mm, which is larger than the largest Amur specimen.

 

Now that we have a more reliable data about the size of the skull of the Ngandong tiger, here are the bone measurements of Panthera tigris soloensis:

 

* Greatest skull length: 386 mm.

* Condylobasal length: 340 mm.

* Basal length: 318 mm.

* Humerus length: 381 mm.

* Femur length: 480 mm.

 

Now, with all the data available, I will begin with my body size estimation.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:20 AM

2. Specimen for comparison:

This is the data base that I will use for comparison:

 

* Amur tigers from Christiansen and Harris (2005 & 2007).

  Male specimens

  Measurements in millimeters

Specimen Id.

Weight (Kg)

CB-skull length

Humerus

Femur

HB-Skeleton

HB-Flesh

Shoulder height

CN5698

220

350.9

350.0

411.0

1653.3

2040

1000

CN5697

221

334.2

372.5

429.5

1636.5

2060

1200

CN6049

225

337.8

360.5

408.5

1647.0

1950

1180

Notes:

CB: Condylobasal

HB: Head and body length (in straight line)

 

Making an analysis on the data, I came with a doubt on the CB-length of the specimen CN5698. The measurement is of 350.9 mm, which is the largest in record for any tiger specimen. This seems a bit strange, as all the other measurements shows that it was no larger than the other specimens. In this case, there are two probable explanations:

 

1. This is, in fact, one of the largest skulls in scientific record, with a CB-length of 350.9 cm, which result in a GSL of 396.5 mm. So, this was a large specimen with a disproportionate large head.

2. This is a mistake in the document, and the actual measurement presented is that of the GSL.

 

I will use the three skulls for comparison, but knowing than that particular measurement is problematic.

 

3. Length based in skull measurements:

Although I have done these calculations before, now I have new skull measurements and other bones for comparisons. So let’s see the results.

 

CB-length       HB-flesh         HB-skeleton    Ratio C-F        Ratio C-S

CN5698:         350.9mm        2040 mm        1653.3 mm     5.81                 4.71

CN5697:         334.2mm        2060 mm        1636.5 mm     6.16                 4.90

CN6049:         337.8mm        1950 mm        1647.0 mm     5.77                 4.88

                                                                       Average          5.91                 4.83

 

Specimen       CB-length       HB-flesh         HB-skeleton

Ngandong       340 mm          2009 mm        1642 mm

                        Maximum:       2094 mm        1666 mm

                        Minimum:        1962 mm        1601 mm

 

This size if too small for an animal of such a size, so I suggest a more complete study about this measurement. Another very useful specimen is the large Amur tiger measured by Dr. Mazák (1967) in the Prague Zoo; using its measurements we get a completely different estimation.

 

Specimen       B-length          HB-length       Ratio

F 061              302.5 mm       2200 mm        7.27    

Ngandong       318 mm          2312 mm

 

Sadly, no other measurements of bones have been published of this large tiger, however it show that, in the flesh, this tiger was very large, following the proportions of this specimen. Check that the basal length was used directly, which gives more reliability to the calculation.

 

Over all, the HB-length, in the flesh, of this P. t. soloensis specimen range from 1962 – 2312 mm in the flesh, depending of the specimen. However I will follow the estimation based in the specimen of Mazák, as resemble more accurately the body length of an animal of such size.

 

Although there are a few skull measurements with its own body size “between pegs”, most of them are of total length, which is not the best form to estimate the body size of a great cat (there is much variation in tail length). Here are two specimens measured “between pegs”, presented in the Records of Rowland Ward (1914) and by Tom Brakefield (1994), together with the large tiger of Mazák (1967):

 

                                   GSL                HB-length       Ratio

a) Gordon specimen  381 mm          2134 mm        5.60

b) Goring-Jones Sp.   369 mm          2096 mm        5.68

c) Mazák specimen   371 mm          2200 mm        5.93

                                                           Average:         5.74

 

Using this new ratio, the estimated body size would be of:

386 * 5.74 = 2215.6 or approximately 2216 mm, in the flesh.

 

This size fit in the range established for this specimen. An overall average of 2112 mm can be established based in skull measurements, however I am inclined to believe more in the largest estimations for obvious reasons.

 

4. Length based in humerus measurements:

The only available specimens for comparison are those from Christiansen & Harris (2005-2007) as only them have they limb bones available.

 

The results of the comparison are:

 

H-length          HB-flesh         HB-skeleton    Ratio H-F        Ratio H-S

CN5698:         350.0 mm       2040 mm        1653.3 mm     5.83                 4.72

CN5697:         372.5 mm       2060 mm        1636.5 mm     5.53                 4.39

CN6049:         360.5 mm       1950 mm        1647.0 mm     5.41                 4.57

                                                                       Average          5.59                 4.56

 

Specimen       H-length          HB-flesh         HB-skeleton

Ngandong       381 mm          2130 mm        1737 mm

                        Maximum:       2221 mm        1798 mm

                        Minimum:        2061 mm        1673 mm

 

These results resemble more those from the skulls of the largest tiger. According with Sterndale (1884), the size of the skull can give a very accurate estimation of the body length of a tiger, but the large bones like the humerus and the femur are likely more reliable.

 

5. Length based in femur measurements:

The results of the comparison, based in the femur are:

 

F-length          HB-flesh         HB-skeleton    Ratio F-F        Ratio F-S

CN5698:         411.0 mm       2040 mm        1653.3 mm     4.96                 4.02

CN5697:         429.5 mm       2060 mm        1636.5 mm     4.80                 3.81

CN6049:         408.5 mm       1950 mm        1647.0 mm     4.77                 4.03

                                                                       Average          4.84                 3.95

 

Specimen       F-length          HB-flesh         HB-skeleton

Ngandong       480 mm          2323 mm        1896 mm

                        Maximum:       2380 mm        1934 mm

                        Minimum:        2290 mm        1829 mm

 

The femur length has give, at this moment, the largest estimation of size. Although this data gives good results, is only suggestive, as the sample on the limb bones is small and there is not established if it is a direct correlation between humerus-femur and the head-body length.

  

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:23 AM

 

6. Conclution:

There have been used three different fossils to establish an accurate estimation of the body size of Panthera tigris soloensis. From one of those fossils (the skull), there has been used three different estimations, based in GSL, CBL and BL. Taking together all the estimations, here is presented the final table with the results of this study, taking in count only the measurements in the flesh:

 

Fossil             Mean  Minimum       Maximum

Skull                2112    1962                2312

Humerus         2130    2061                2221

Femur             2323    2290                2380   

Average:         2188    2104                2304

 

The results show that this was, in fact, one very large tiger, with a body size similar to the largest tigers ever recorded.

 

Now, about the tail length, although the tail of tigers normally measures the half of the head-body length (Mazák, 1981) and there is some degree of variation. Brander (1923) stated that the shortest and the longest tail measured by him were of 30 and 45 inches respectively (76.2 and 114.3 cm). The longest tail recorded by scientists was that of the Sauraha male with 113 cm. In theory, if the head-body length of Panthera tigris soloensis was of 2188 mm, the tail length could be of 1094 mm (range between 1052 to 1152), which fits very well in the scientific and hunting records.

 

The shoulder height was discussed before, and the analysis shows that the specimen, from which the humerus came, would have had a shoulder height of c.120 cm.

 

The body measurements more be presented in two possible cases:

 

1. If all the bones came from the same specimen, the body size of this particular tiger was:

            * Head-body length: 219 cm.

            * Total length: 328 cm.

            * Shoulder height: 120 cm.

 

2. If the three fossils used in the analysis were of at least two or even three completely different animals, the body size of this large specimens (probably males) was:

* Head-body length: 2104 - 2304 cm.

            * Total length: 316 - 345 cm.

            * Shoulder height: 120 cm.

 

This is as far I can get, with the available data, however, it shows that this is a very good contender for the title of the largest cat in history. About the weight issue, I think that the estimation of 290-320 kg is pretty accurate and reliable.

 

Ps. Making a better analysis on the shoulder height, the specimen of P. t. soloensis studied here, could have a standing height of 110-114 cm, just like the tallest tigers in record (measured between pegs), or probably slightly more.

 peter:
I posted the Mazak-table on the actual height at the shoulder of standing tigers some time ago (on the tiger-extintion thread). The very large Duisburg-Zoo Amur tiger, who stood 110 cm. at the shoulder (according to Dr. Gewalt), wasn't included.

Captive adult Amur males ranges between 95-110 cm. and the average could be 102-103 cm. I also posted measurements of 3 captive male Amur tigers and the average for these was very close to the average V. Mazak found. Apart from these, I saw two captive male Amur tigers considerably taller than all others. I, however, wasn't able to measure them.



This was posted on another thread some time ago. Could have been posted by Europe, but not sure. Don't remember the thread and also don't remember the source.

Measurements of lions and tigers in the Paris Zoo (1895). Actual height at the shoulder of standing animals. There's no information on the animals, but one would expect they were imported from the former French colonies. If this would be true, the tigers could have been from French Indo-China and the lions from northern Africa. But it's speculation all the way.



ShoulderheightParisJardindesplants1895.j


ShoulderheighttigersParisJardindesplants  



Guate:

The largest tigers of all times

Here are the largest tigers of all times, with a little information about them:

 

1. The Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis)

This tiger was the pinnacle of the body size for this species. They live in the ancient Sonda shelf about 195,000 years ago. They were larger than the largest Amur-Wanhsien specimens, with large bones but with relative slender metapodials. This tiger already had the modern Javanese form’s high M1 index and narrow occiput, which suggest that this is the direct ancestor of this species, now known as Panthera sondaica. The draw (of 2012) resembles these characteristics, together with more or less broad stripes, just like its ancestor of the mainland, although more darker in color and slender paws.

image

Body size:

* Head-body length: 210 – 230 cm.

* Total length: 316 – 345 cm.

* Shoulder height: 120 cm.

* Weight: 250 – 370 kg.

 

2. The Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens)

This is the direct antecessor of the modern mainland tigers, which evolved from the north of Indochina about 75,000 years ago. Is possible that this new form of tigers, traveled to the Sonda shelf and replaced the old from already present (Panthera tigris oxygnata) and gives origin to the Ngandong tiger. The fossils show that this great cat was of the same size than modern Amur-Bengal tigers, but it has robust bones and larger paws (according with its metapodials). This tiger is practically indistinguishable from modern ones, and probably looked just like a very large modern Amur tiger. Here is my representation of 2008 (modified in 2012).

image

Body size:

The same than modern specimens, with weights of 180 – 300 kg or slightly more.

 

3. The Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris)

There is a debate about which is the largest tiger in modern times. However, most of the records show that the Bengal tiger have reached the highest level, with the largest skull and the longest body measurement. Its morphology is very know, so I just portrait him in an aggressive jump, with all the fierceness that give it fame. This is a draw of 2007.

image

Body size:

* Head-body length: 180 – 204 cm (up to 221 cm).

* Total length: 274 – 311 cm (up to 323 cm).

* Shoulder height: 91 – 112 cm.

* Weight: 170 – 260 kg (up to 320 kg, empty belly).

 

4. The Central Asia tiger (Panthera tigris virgata)

The tiger with the largest territorial extension of all, this great cat dominated from the northern Turkey and the Caspian Sea region (smaller in size), to Manchuria and the Amur region in the Russian Far East (larger in size); only those of the Amur region survive at this day. These cats were the largest in modern days, rivaled only by the probably slightly larger Northern Indian tigers. Much has been discussed about this population that is futile to rewrite all again. My image was made in 2008, and presents only the western population of this subspecies, popularly known as the Caspian tigers.

image

Body size [Amur region]:

* Head-body length: 178 – 208 cm (up to c.220 cm).

* Total length: 278 – 309 cm (up to 330 cm).

* Shoulder height: 81 – 106 cm (up to 110 cm).

* Weight: 155 – 207 kg (up to 325 kg).

 

I hope you like it.

 



 

Last Edited By: GuateGojira Dec 24 13 6:45 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:25 AM

This data (about the use of dentition for the 470 kg weight) surprise me, as the document of 2005 clearly mention that the femur was used for the 470 kg estimation. Maybe she forgot that.



About the publication of Dr Groves, the large tiger that he mention in his document is the large specimens of Wanhsien (or Wanxien, according with Groves), but the original bone dimensions shows that this tiger was just slightly larger than modern ones, while the Ngandong tiger surpass it, although it have slender metapodials.



About the underestimation of weights, previous documents that I have seen shows that dentition and cranial measurements using the data from Van Valkenburg gives lower estimations, that’s why I mention this. However, this case is pretty weird, as it gives the highest estimation that I have saw. I will put all the estimations about the weight of Panthera atrox at this date to give you a better idea of what I am talking about.



I will send my doubts to Dr Hertler, as I personally don’t think that any normal great cat, apart from a few exceptional specimens, can weigh up to 350 kg except for Smilodon populator. That’s what Dr Christiansen said to me (check his email at the beginning of this topic. Don’t let us fall in another “Godzillification effect”.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:31 AM

There is constant debate of which method is best to estimate the body mass of prehistoric animals. Many authors have state they formulas but very few (or just one) have provided its data base.

 

Here are all the weight estimations for Panthera atrox, using dental, craniological and limb material. I post first the image and the analysis came bellow.

 

image

This used the formulas of Legendre & Roth (1988), based in dentition and Gingrich (1990) based femoral size. Check that the estimation of Gingrich is the used here:

http://www.beringia.com/research/lion.html

http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheets/_extinct/lion_american/lion_american.htm

Now you know where this number came.

 

image

Here is the Anyonge (1993) study. These results were extremely inflated as he mixed the data of several carnivores, included canids and bears, to estimate the body mass of cats. smiley: sick Surely, the most spectacular of the weights, but wrong.

 

image

Sorkin (2008) estimation used a basal length of an African lion skull. However he don’t explain its method and is curious that he quote Turner & Anton (1997) for its sources, when this authors mention no bone dimension for Panthera atrox in the book. Maybe they refer to the modern lion, as there is a description in that book that modern lions weight up to 225 kg. Here is the full quote:

“Males in eastern Africa may average about 170 kg, while females average about 120 kg; in southern Africa an average of about 190 kg for males has been recorded, with a maximum of 225 kg.”

 This calculation from Sorkin is the most dubious of all presented here.

 

image

Christiansen & Harris used a new method here, maybe the only one with a data base of REAL animals and REAL weights, not just average and figures from literature. The result is very reliable for me, and gives high figures of up to 351 kg for the largest specimen in Rancho La Brea. When I applied this method in the larges skull of this species, the calculated weight was of 387.4 kg, pretty much the highest weight since the figure of Legendre & Roth (1988) of 342 kg.

 

image

This is the final calculation made at this time, and the one that used more methods. The results that they found using the formula of Van Valkenburg (1990) was high, different than other studies where the figures from this formulas where the smaller. Now, when Wheeler& Jefferson (2009) applied the formulas of Legendre & Roth (1988), the weights simple go down to unbelievable figures. Maybe they don’t use it correctly; maybe they used more specimens (32 males, against an unknown number of the first publication of Legendre and Roth). Finally, when they used the formulas of Christiansen & Harris (2009; femur only), extremely large figures came to light, but there is the GREAT doubt about if they used the method of “weight” and “unweight” the calculations of the bones (if you have read the document of 2005 about the weight of Smilodon, you will know of what I am talking about).

 

Finally, they came with a simple average of all the methods and the results give similar figures to those of Van Valkenburg, an for me, the most reliable estimation at this time. So it seems that I most ask apologize to Dr. Van Valkenburg here.

 

So, depending of the method that you would use, or in what of them you believe, this are all the results about Panthera atrox, some of them very complete (even with sex differentiation), other with no clue of where they came with it and others with a kaleidoscope of weights, which gives weird figures.

 I noticed the advice offered was dismissed. So was the mod. You than continued with a post loaded with crap. Much appreciated. Here's the response and don't complain. I would recommend reading the advice in the conclusions. Here's to you.


THE SIZE OF LIONS AND TIGERS ACCORDING TO PACKER

At the level of species, wild lions and tigers roughly compare in most respects. At the level of subspecies, tigers show more variation. Amur and Indian tigers are a bit longer and heavier than lions, whereas those in other regions are a bit smaller. At the level of individuals, tigers show more variation as well. In general, one could state it's easier to find a 500-pound tiger than a 500-pound lion. Lions, however, have both relatively and absolutely longer skulls.

This is what one would want to see in an appreciation of a researcher. If a busdriver went for Packers summary, I might agree. If an exerienced researcher publishes a general statement lacking crucial information, I would get to below par.  


CREDIBILITY

I wrote scientific information tops anything else in the topic discussed. The reason is the information is tested. Researchers, especially those who publish often, like Christiansen and Mazak, can get involved in problems at times. True. That, however, doesn't mean they lost credibility. The articles on lions and tigers both wrote were sound and very informative.

You compare to those who dismissed V. Mazak when he allowed himself to stray on the size of Amur tigers in the first edition of his book 'Der Tiger'. Mazak corrected himself in the third edition in that he stated he had been misled. Not everyone would do that, but he did. In spite of that, many of his peers avoid Mazak when possible. I know some of them. I am waiting for their papers, articles and books. I will read them and I mean read them well. I have yet to see a researcher who was flawless all the time in all respects in every publication.


WHITMAN AND PACKER ON THE SIZE OF LIONS

They wrote a lion " ... should stand about 1.2 m tall, weigh between 126-272 kg. and have a length of 2.4-3.3 m. without the tail. Without ther tail. Yes, of course.

I have measured lions and tigers in museums and in a rescue centre. And I don't mean a few. The tallest I saw was in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart. He was exceptional, but stood exactly 100 cm. at the shoulder (measured in a staight line). I also measured 5 adult males in the rescue centre. Big males with big skulls and large chests, all 400 pounds or better. Not one approached 100 cm. while standing. The only ones who did, and only just at that, were 2 adult male Amur tigers.

I weighed quite a number of adult male lions and tigers. One that wasn't weighed was a muscular male Amur tiger. The transporters said he was the heaviest they had carried. Between 225-250 kg., they thought. The heaviest out of 60. But a good lion would get to 270 kg. or better. Says Packer. Right.

I have measured over 20 adult male big cats. The longest by a margin was a male Amur. He was 194 cm. in head and body in a straight line. But a good male lion is 240-330 cm. Without the tail. Says Whitman and packer.
 
If I was to conclude the statement was total crap, it would be the underestimate of this year.


GUATE'S TABLES

Guate only uses data from peer-reviewed documents. Although this should be good enough, he contacted the researchers for extra details and confirmation when possible. His efforts resulted in flawless tables. Says me. It's true his tables don't have the 272 kg. Kenya lion, the 313 kg. Hectorspruit lion and the 389 kg. Indian tiger. And they shouldn't.

I could post over 50 'reliable' reports on 600-pound plus tigers. I do not. Experience told me an adult, fit, big cat of 200 kg. and over is an impressive animal. Muscle all the way and more than enough power to overcome even a very large wild herbivore. One exceeding 225 kg. is quite something to behold. In captivity and in the wild. That's why there are so few reliable reports on 500-pound lions and tigers. It's true they are there in both species, but it's very rare in lions. Guate's conservative approach regarding weights is well founded.


- Panthera atrox

And all this because one researcher had the audacity to question the relation between P. atrox and P. leo, Asad?



CONCLUSIONS

a - The Premier League was created to get to interesting threads, good information and good debates. We want to attract good posters and avoid crap and wars at all costs. This is why moderation is important. It is a fact you dismissed the guidelines and a well intended post. 

b - The information in your last post is close to total crap in all departments. As you was informed well before I did, I would go for deliberate misinformation.

c - Guate has a good reputation. The reason is he posts both interesting and reliable information. He isn't flawless all the time, but he's well over par. Says me. It is a fact you discredit him on a regular basis. The arguments used are not sound. The venom is. The problem for you is, discrediting and venom aren't part of the deal.  

d - As I was the initiator of the Premier League, Apollyon, Perrault and, I assume, Frank decided I should give it a try as a mod. It is a fact you dismissed me right away. Thanks for the help, Asad.

e - I decided against delete and in favour of a decent response to your last post. If you learn how the handle preference and respect the rules of conduct, you could develop into a good poster. Remember I'm not a parrot. You either comply or it's deletes. And two is out. Make up your mind. 










Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:37 AM

Skull

Posted Image
Would that be the Panthera tigris acutidens skull? 

Thesis on the Pantherinae in the Von Koeningswald Collection
Author Mazlanghani, S.K. (2005). In German. On the Pantherinae in the VVon Koeningswald Collection. Interesting:

http://hopsea.mnhn.fr/pc/thesis/Diploma_Karimi-Mazlaghani_2005.pdf    


1 - PLEISTOCENE SOUTH-EAST ASIA:

Pleistocene Java apparently was a frontier with sand dunes. This would attract some animals (and humans) and not others. The first map suggests Pleistocene tigers in Java did not live in dense forests. The need for a small and manouvrable body wasn't there, that is. If they occupied a coastal landscape, chances are they hunted animals also not occupying forests. No need for small bodies in them as well, that is. Coastal regions often are rich in nutrients. Meaby the large size of Java tigers was a result of adaptation to large prey animals.    

MapofPleistoceneAsiawatchIndonesia.png



  IndonesiainthePleistoceneNgangdong.jpg


2 - SKULLS OF JAVA TIGERS


Sond9-photonr97Wiesb.jpg

Sond11-photonr99Wiesbadenback_0002.jpg


Son3-photonr41Leiden.jpg



3 - THE PLEISTOCENE CHINA TIGER SKULL


PleistocenetigerskullChina2.jpg



PleistocenetigerskullChina1.jpg



4 - OTHER OLD CHINA SKULLS


Anotherone-3.jpg


AnotheroneclassifiedasalionbyJHMazak-1.j


RecenttigerskullChinaGrizzlyClaws.jpg


NewPleistocenetigerskullChina1.jpg



5 - CONCLUSIONS

a - Pleistocene Java, from what is known, was kind of a frontier region. It had sand dunes and apparently was not covered with densee forest. Coastal regions often are rich in food. They could have been a safe-haven for large animals not adapted for life in forests. It's likely most would have lived in large groups and it's also likely tigers followed and adapted over time. One could assume it wouldn't have taken a long time to get to the ideal size, as the opposite (dwarfing) seems to take a few generations only.

b - Tiger skulls from Java collected between 1830-1950, compared to other subspecies, show a limited range in size (more in females than in males). This is unusual, even compared to Sumatra (also an island). It seems Java was colonised much earlier than Sumatra. It could be (not sure) Java developed into an island sooner than Sumatra, with wildlife, most probably, adapting within a few generations. No need for diversification and same for tigers. This says something on the amount of variation in prey animals in the last centuries. The early adaptions for overwhelming large prey animals (a heavily curved skull with large and heavy canines) still shows in skull morphology. More so than in Sumatra skulls. The typical shape of the occiput, in my opinion (far from sure), could point towards a degree of specialisation not seen in other subspecies. Not an adaption to long struggles, but quick kills. Java tigers have relatively longer faces than Indian tigers and their faces also are not that vaulted. This could point towards less need for force from above, meaning they probably didn't attack in the same way. Meaby Java tigers came from below, going for the throat rather than the neck vertebrae.  

c - Sumatra skulls are a bit shorter than Java skulls. They also show more variation, indicating the island was occupied not that long ago perhaps. Not long enough to adapt to the degree seen in Bali and Java. The amount of variation could be a result of specialisation in that some specialised on small animals and other on large. In Sumatra, the amount of variation in prey animals is such, it's possible to adapt. The strange thing is specialisation towards large animals isn't restricted to males. Some female skulls are longer than male skulls and as robust. This is not seen in other subspecies. One could almost conclude Sumatran tigers have two subspecies. Meaby they were still adapting when humans interfered. I wasn't able to find out if there's a connection between size and region yet, but expect to get there in some time.
 
d - Pleistocene tiger skulls seem to be much more robust than modern skulls. They also are much more robust than older big cat skulls, suggesting the Pleistocene could have been a big cat paradise. As they do not seem to be much longer than the longest modern skulls, one could conclude specialisation towards large or very large animals shows in robustness first in solitary hunters. The Pleistocene tiger skull resembles Java tiger skulls in more than one way: long and narrow nasals moderately or hardly extending towards the nasal opening (1); rostrum as wide as the top of the os frontalis (2); oversized and big upper canines (3) and a straight or concave, heavily reinforced, mandibula (4). A skull with many anchors for the canines and the forces directly connected. Elevation at the orbit seems to top width, indicating it could be more important for exercising pressure at the canine tips than wide arches.


Do you know if someone has published on these Pleistocene skulls? A thesis, perhaps? I would be very interested in the result.

As for the summary above. What was forgotten? What would you add?

     
Very elaborate summary about the Pleistocene tiger, and i also notice the squarish mandible among the primitive tigers.

It seems to be an old school characteristic among the Pleistocene tigers and even other Pleistocene big cats. Among the modern big cats, only the Javanese tiger has the most strikingly similar characteristic of mandible.


Primitive tiger (Panthera zdanskyi)

416pxpantherazdanskyid.png



Northern Chinese specimen and Panthera atrox

1atroxtigercomparison.jpg


Hooijer, 1949

As he was and still is mentioned more than once, I decided to post this here:



PleistoceneJava1-1.jpg


PleistoceneJava2-1.jpg          
Pleistocene big cats and Smilodon

1 - PLEISTOCENE TIGERS AND/OR FORE-RUNNERS CHINA

Watch the typical features seen in modern tiger skulls: narrow os frontalis, wide rostrum and very large and thick upper canines. Mandibula straight or straitish. Concave mandibulas apparently are a recent adaption, probably resulting from specialisation. Pleistocene skulls were very robust adaptions to circumstances that could have been close to a big cat paradise. Plenty of large animals unable to defend themselves against a large big cat. A big cat able to overcome a arge prey animal without too much loss of energy is able to conserve energy and invest it in larger bodies and more strength, enabling him to go for even larger prey animals. This adaptional treat could, like in dwarfing, have a progressive character. The question is what would have been the optimal size.   


PleistocenetigerskullChina2.jpg


PleistocenetigerskullChina1.jpg


Anotherone-3.jpg


AnotheroneclassifiedasalionbyJHMazak-1.j



2 - SMILODON SKULLS

The first one was photographed in the Zoological Museum Amsterdam, which has now merged with Naturalis. Second one was photographed in the office of Dr. John de Vos of Naturalis (Leiden, Netherlands, 2004). No details on the fist one, but the second one, if not mistaken, is from Kreta (...).

Notice the differences with the Pleistocene tiger skulls. The Smilodon skulls are shorter in greatest total length, narrower and much less robust. The enormous upper canines had no anchors, meaning skull morphology wasn't adequate. Also notice the Smilodon skulls have an extended anterior part (long maxillary bones) and not enough room for anchors in the posterior part. Ineffective against large prey animals and prone to breakage.

Big cat skulls, over time, developed towards conical teeth and anchors for the canines (robustness). This is more seen in tigers than in lions and life style (solitary vs pride) and intention (fights vs hunting) would explain most of the differences seen. 


Smilodon-1.jpg


Kreta-1.jpg

 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#12 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:42 AM

I think Grizzlyclaws posted this about the 480 mm femur, but here it is again according to Christiansen's equation:
5*10^-7*480^3.318= 393.8 kg
http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anzf36/anzf36-093p.pdf
If anyone would like to read the document with the equations.

I think I got one... Here you go

Tigerluver try that same formula you used above for the Ngandog tiger for these tigers... If you notice, it is surprisingly close to the real weight for them!

CN5667: 5*10^-7*360.5^3.318 = 152.3 kg (Only 7 kg off)
CN6049: 5*10^-7*408.5^3.318 = 230.6 kg ( Only 5 kg off)
CN5698: 5*10^-7*411^3.318 = 235.3 kg (5 kg off)


So it looks like the formula is roughly accurate with other tigers.



   Morphos2.jpg          







Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:46 AM

peter:
It is known Indonesia is a vulcano hot spot. If Indonesia developed in the way you described, volcanic eruptions would have been frequent and significant. This means flora and fauna would have been destroyed more than once. Also meaning we should be able to find traces of different stages of destruction and redevelopment in different layers. 

If tigers, as was suggested by research, migrated from China in different waves, chances are some of the waves migrating to what is now Indonesia would have been affected. Meaning they probably went extinct quite abruptly. Continuing this line, one would expect to find skulls of different types not directly related. 

You suggested Java tigers, from the shape of the mandibula, could have been the oldest subspecies.

Let's see. Java skulls are different from other types in the mandibula (nearly always concave), face (longer) and general shape (vault). Meaby the long maxillary bone was an adaption for the oversized canines. I wonder if it was the best solution.

Meaby we could use analogy to get to an answer. 

Indian tigers seem to be their closest relatives. They could be a later, and improved, version in that the extended maxillary bone seen in Java skulls was replaced by a shorter, but more vaulted and more robust front and relatively thicker canines, allowing for more force at the tip of the canines. The more rounded and more robust skull is more clearly seen in regions were tigers specialise on very large prey animals, like Kaziragha. From Kazirangha one could  perhaps conclude the need for more force, in tigers, didn't result in more length only. If this feature would be selected as the best sign of developement over time (adaption), Java tigers would perhaps be the oldest. 

China tiger skulls could provide answers, meaning Java skulls should resemble them in most basic respects. J.H. Mazak said they do.

If a time line would be made, we (in that order) should get to:

1 - China
2 - Java (and shortly after Bali)
3 - Sumatra
4 - Eastern Russia
5 - Indo-China
6 - India

We would also expect to find more specific characters in skulls of types developing at the end of the extensions, meaning research should confirm tigers living at the edges should show more more specific skull characters than in types with continuous intergradation. J.H. Mazak and others confirmed. One would also expect to find less variation in skulls in tigers living at the edges. Again confirmed. 

I still wonder about the conclusions regarding P. tigris altaica and P. tigris virgata. One would expect them to be related, but one would also expect the origin to be closer to the centre of development: eastern Russia. It, however, seems that virgata could have started in north-western China or, perhaps, north-western India. Meaning they would have crossed very elevated regions before going west, north and, later, east. This part isn't quite clear. But it is clear they were the most recent subspecies.  

Assuming this map, apart from the origin of the Caspian tiger (could have started in north-western India) and the direction of the arrows (the route to Indonesia probably was very different), is roughly ok, the question is which development started when:



Mazzakshypothesis-1.jpg
 
Also note both Mazak (1983) and Heptner and Sludskij (1980) referred to reports on tigers in western Russia (just east of the Dnjepr River, Ukraine) in the Middle Ages. I would be interested in information on north-eastern Siberia, Sachalin, Hokkaido and Borneo as well. We know lions ranged from western Europe all the way to Beringia through northern parts of Siberia, but the skulls recently posted by Grizzly (skulls of very large Pleistocene tigers in my opinion) showed tigers might have reached north-eastern parts of Asia as well.  


In fact, the bones of the Ngandong specimens were not very well preserved and they were even damaged in the extraction, check this out:

image

 

It seems that the broken part of the skull was caused by people, not by the fossilization process. It is a real shame that the excavation process in that area was so bad.

 

I am sure of one thing, that bone in the picture is not the femur of the Ngandong tiger, as it is broken and Koenigswald (1933), apparently, describe it as complete. Waverider could give us a clue, but sadly, he doesn’t post anymore.








 

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:48 AM

Body mass of the Ngandong tiger

Sorry for the long long long delay in the publication of the weights and sizes of the Ngandong tiger.

 

I must tell to you that now I have two classes in the University, so my time is again very short.

 

However, I don’t want to leave you in the edge about the results, so here is the most important thing, the weights itself:

 

Id.                   Fossil                        Size                Average weight overall    Average with Anyonge (1993)

F-09 #504     M1 (f)             25 mm.           140 kg (130-149 n=2)                    -

F-10 #5497   M1 (c)             26 mm.           157 kg (146-168 n=2)                    -

F-11 #2671   M1 (f)             30 mm.           243 kg (227-258 n=2)                    -

F-12 #1933   Humerus       353 mm.           212 kg (207-216 n=4)            225 kg (207-278 n=5)

F-13 #9554   Humerus       381 mm.           306 kg (269-369 n=4)            316 kg (269-369 n=5)

F-14 #2811   Skull (Cb)      388 mm.        269 kg (248-311 n=3)                    -

F-15 #2641   Femur              480 mm.        367 kg (340-394 n=4)           389 kg (340-479 n=5)

 

These are the results of he averaged figures of the results  obtained in base of the formulas of Van Valkenburgh (1990), Christiansen (1999), Christiansen & Harris (2005), Sorkin (2008) and Christiansen & Harris (2009). I also calculated with Anyonge (1993), but the results are inflated, so I separate the results in two columns, as you can see.

 

The document that is quoted as the most reliable on the body mass of great cats is that of Christiansen & Harris (2005) “Body size of Smilodon”. After reading the document I manage to use the formulas on the long bones of the Ngandong tiger and the results are described here:

 

Id.                   Fossil                        Weight (weighted) Weight (unweighted)

F-12 #1933   Humerus                       208.8 kg                    190.1 kg

F-13 #9554   Humerus                       368.8 kg                    354.2 kg

F-15 #2641   Femur                        394.2 kg                    372.2 kg       

 

This sample includes the data on the Lynx, which according with the authors, is to different form the other great cats that cause a bias in the weight to a lower figure. However I include it because the authors included it in the sample for Smilodons. I manage to calculate these figures in base of 4 variables (the only available) which are: Length, antero-posterior diameter, latero-medial diameter and least circumference. This last one was obtained by the equation of the mathematic Srinivāsa Ramanujan, after all, the bones are not circular, but elliptical.

 

This are the results on the body mass of the Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis), using the most reliable formulas at the moment. I would like to use those from Legendre and Ruth, but I don’t have the wide of  the M1, so is impossible to use it.

 

Finally, it is easy to draw a line on the population of this animal, with the smaller specimens (140-160 kg) been probably females and the largest specimens (212-367 kg) were surely males.


Greetings to all. smiley: smile

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:49 AM

I see. Did you apply this equation: pi ( 3 (a + b) - [ (a + 3 b) (3 a + b) ]1/2 ) 

That is what I applied but the problem I cannot seem to deduce the least circumference from the diameters.
 Did you apply the AP and transverse diameters of the femur individually as well using the equation of Christiansen and Harris 2005, if so how? I can't seem to use the log based from Christiansen and Harris 2005 due to the lack of corresponding measurements.

And  dentition data:
specimensup / infmsmtsidelength [mm]width [mm] 
P3sup2411
P4sup3519
P3sup23
P4sup36.517.5
P3supdex2112.5
P4supdex37.520
P3supsin2513
P4supsin3619







Sup=superior
 

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:52 AM

  I haven't messed with this since May, but I intend to do a lot more soon. Here you can see the analysis I started in May. Look at the tab "Correl vs bone info".

There may be some miscategorizations of muscles.
There should also be variation between species, requiring perhaps some changes to how I set up the table to allow for that.

For example:
"These two different types of interaction between forelimbs and trunk must be reflected primarily in the structure of the pectoral muscles. M endopectoralis (Figure 175) begins in bears on the ensiform process of the sternum and on the last rib cartilages of the true ribs and ends on the tuberculi majus and minus humeri and on the coracoid process. It is placed very conveniently for drawing the trunk between the legs, but it can have hardly any effect on bringing the legs toward the body. M. ectopectoralis, which begins on the manubrium and the first few segments of the sternum and ends on the crest of the tuberculum majur humeri, can, on the contrary, scarcely participate in drawing the trunk between the legs but instead, owing to the transverse arrangement of its fibers with respect to the trunk, it functions as a muscle pulling the legs toward the body. Naturally, m. ectopectoralis is specially strenged in bears, while in cats and dogs, especially in those adapted for swift running, it is the m. endopectoralis which is strengthed. In the Ursidae the weight of the superficial pectoral muscle constitutes 4.4 to 5.4% of the weight of the fore and hind limb muscles and the deep pectoral muscle only 0.9-2.1%. In the Canidae the weight of m. ectopectoralis represents 1.7-2.3% and in the Felidae 1.5-3.6%, while that of m. endopectoralis represents 4.3-5.9% in the Canidae and 3.5-6% in the Felidae (Table 22)."

Quick note:
Endopectoralis = Pectoralis profundus in more recent texts
Ectopectoralis = Pectoralis superficialis in more recent texts

"When a bear gallops, the thrust of the forelimbs, as in other carnivores, is accomplished on account of extension of the elbow and shoulder joints and the drawing of the body between the legs. Due to the strong protrusion of the humerus and its almost vertical position at the very beginning of the stage of support, m. ectopectoralis (Figure 176), which is strongly developed in the Ursidae in connection with their mode of life, can be involved in this act of drawing the trunk between the legs..."

I think the categorization work I did can be greatly improved.

Also,it would be ideal to come up with some sort of elegant solution for the problem of muscles acting over multiple joints, that doesn't involve double-counting them (each muscle should only be waited according to its mass once).
Ideally, we'd divide each muscle up according to the relative moment it produces about each of the joints. However, this likely differs a lot between species and is unavailable for most.


~~~

As for relative tooth sizes. I agree with your concern. While it is likely that relative tooth sizes varies greater in Ursidae, due to greater dietary variation within the family, consider this from "Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behaviour in the bears (Carnivora: Ursidae)":
image
While the bamboo eating panda vs insectivorous sloth bear is a pretty extreme difference obviously related to diet, the brown bear's teeth are also substantially larger than the American black bear's.

I'm sure one of the articles on big cats has something to give us an idea of their variation in tooth size.
Their canines show a reasonable amount of variation (eg tigers have relatively longer canines than lions).

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:55 AM

  *elephant-sized humerus

image
From Soibelzon and Schubert (2011).

image
From Gobelz and Martin (2001).

I have not read Kurten 1967, but Grahhh has assured me that there is an error on the graph and the logest ulna is actually 591 mm, not 581 mm:
image
Kurten 1967 and Merrian & Stock are two articles I must really get a hold of.

UVP 015 is a well known massive A. simus specimen.
Figueirido et al (2010), reversing body mass formulas that were used on UVP 015:
Femur total length = 10^((log(body mass)+3.85)/2.37)
Femur ML diameter = 10^((log(body mass)+1.71)/2.63)
Tibia total length = 10^((log(body mass)+3.62)/2.40)
Tibia ML diameter = 10^((log(body mass)+0.96)/2.33)

Body mass estimates based on these limb bone measurements were 879 kg, 1109 kg, 823 kg, and 1019 kg respectively.
Meaning these measurements were:
Femur total length = 736 mm
Femur ML diameter = 64 mm
Tibia total length = 529 mm
Tibia ML diameter = 50 mm


While the diameter lengths were huge for A. angustidens, I blame this on the injuries the animal sustained and odd growths that formed as they healed.
Grahhh produced this image comparing the four humeri side by side (not to scale), and we can see that A. simus does not look comparatively gracile if one ignores those bony growths:
image
EDIT:
The note says the above image is not to scale. Perhaps I (or someone else) could try doing that so we can better visualize how these fossils actually compare with one another.  

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:56 AM

Ratios:
image
image

Judging by humeri being just about identical in robustness, the metapodials of the Wahsien tiger were simply just larger like the present day Amur tiger shows. Frustrating stuff, now I feel like Wahnsien tiger is something like the Amur tiger, but like you said, the Amur tiger supposedly evolved recently.           

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Nov 5 13 4:58 AM

I agree.
Most Arctodus simus specimens were smaller, but I posted about at least three different specimens with bones larger than that found in A. angustidens.

Modern bears show very high variability in size, likely at least in part due to the importance of dominance in determining calorie intake (for example, see "The relative importance of prey density and social dominance in determining energy intake by bears feeding on Pacific salmon")- the case was probably similar for these extinct bears.

The large A. agnustidens specimen was a very old male, also much larger than the other specimens found.
Although, MACN 5132-which had a 540 mm humerus- had a greatest diameter of distal humeral epiphysis of 205 mm.
That means it had a greatest distal humeral epiphysis/greatest humerus length ratio of 0.380!
The huge A. angustidens specimen MLP 35-IX-26 only had values of 184 and 185 mm, despite the much larger humerus...



Do note-to answer tigerluver's question:

tigerluver wrote:
I am uncertain whether the greatest width of the distal epiphysis corresponds with the transverse distal diameter taken by von Koenigswald. I want to say it does, but I would like further confirmation.


No, I do not believe so. As the names imply, one is trying to measure along the axis that produces the greatest measurement, while the other is measuring strictly along the mediolateral (aka transverse) axis.

However, perhaps the mediolateral axis is fairly close to what produces the greatest measurement.
For example, for a Malaysian tiger from USNM from Batu Paliat
Anteroposterial distal epiphysis diameter/humerus length = 0.210
Mediolateral distal epiphysis diameter/humerus length = 0.268

Have you read "Forelimb indicators of prey-size preference in the Felidae"?
When it comes to interpreting how bones lead to ability, probably much better read than my info on how bones relate to muscles. Answers the question directly (relating bones to prey size preference), while answering relation to muscles simply moves the question: how do muscles relate to abilities?

Observations of actual abilities is always the best evidence, from there we can only infer for extinct species based on relations to extant animals...
Did you know that cheetahs have been found to produce around twice the power as greyhounds? Despite greyhounds having in general significantly more massive locomotor muscles. Obviously some sort of unexplained variable. Morphology data I've seen by itself would have made me guess greyhounds are the more powerful runners, but the best way to learn about power is obviously to measure power. And that shows cheetahs to be well ahead. I think some critical info about morphology must be missing, but that illustrates the point excellently IMO.

For power, see "Locomotion dynamics of hunting in wild cheetahs". A graph:
image
Some info for comparison. Car info taken from wiki, animal info taken from the article:
Usain bolt: 25 W/kg
Polo horses: 30 W/kg
Racing greyhounds: 60 W/kg
2013 Honda civic: 87.5 W/kg
2013 Ford focus: 93.7 W/kg
My 500SEL ('93) Mercedes: 112 W/kg
Cheetah max: ~140 W/kg!
2013 Ford mustang: 145 W/kg


Note: I did not use pixel counting to determine the highest point on that graph. I just guessed, so there is a reasonable degree of error. The above list was copy and pasted from a facebook status, and thus a bit casually-directed.
-I had forgot to mention a very important fact about the car horsepower data: horsepower info is for the engines; rwhp is a fair bit lower. Weights were also (IIRC) curb weights; peope and a full tank of gas add more.
Other differences exist as well: cheetah's muscle contractions have a better torque and power curve, but cheetahs only have a single gear, while all the vehicles have transmissions that allow them to produce high power and multiple different speeds (helping them all reach much higher top speeds).

Also, cheetah power was averaged over three strides to produce the data points while vehicle horse power figures are peak horse power - occurring over a small RPM range.
A small range normally not encountered in driving (ie, my car normally shifts up when it reaches about half the rpm at which max power is produced).

The cheetah's power being calculated based on acceleration means it is a much more direct measure of acceleration performance than the engine hp production.


Cheetah vs greyhound muscle info can be found in the articles "Functional anatomy of the cheetah hindlimb" and "Functional anatomy of the cheetah forelimb". Do note that the authors made an error in calculating adjusted PCSA.

Adjusted PCSA = Muscle mass/(1.06*fascicle length) * cos(pennation angle)
As the article itself says.
However, if you check their PCSA values it is readily apparent that they instead used:
Adjusted PCSA = Muscle mass/(1.06*fascicle length * cos(pennation angle))

Something to hold in mind when reading the article and looking over the data. The result is that force output of highly pennate muscles is greatly overestimated by Hudson et al 2011a and 2011b.


Odd fact:
"Power output of skinned skeletal muscle fibres from the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)" found cheetah muscle power output does not explain their locomotor success. Muscles tested in sub-optimal conditions for maximum power output- they found a lower value for the output of the cheetah's muscles than many of the points on the above graph for the entire animal (with a substantial amount of tissue with functions other than producing locomotor power!).

That article, as well as the Hudson article used captive cheetahs.
The article producing very high power output for accelerating cheetahs was based on wild cats wearing GPS collars. I wonder how much of the difference that explains?

My guess: a good chunk. But I have to place high uncertainty on my guess.

GuateGojira wrote:
Abouth the Humerus, the 82 mm of the Wanhsien
tiger correspond to the greatest wide of the distal epiphysis. I this case,
this measurement correspond to the distal transversal diameter, not the upper
one. The 88 mm are form the distal wide of the femur. Here are the corrected
measurements and values:

 

Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) humerus:

Greatest length: 306 mm.

Distal transvers diameter: 82 mm.

“Robusticity” ratio: 0.2680 (0.267973856 full)

 

Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) humerus:

Greatest length: 381 mm.

Distal transvers diameter: 102 mm.

“Robusticity” ratio: 0.2677 (0.267716535 full)

 

In this case, both bones seems to have about
the same ratio and although the difference supports the northern tiger, the
difference is minimum to almost inexistent. It will be interesting to see which
is the ratio for modern tigers with the data of Christiansen & Harris
(2005).


Please see my data dryad link above, for data from "Forelimb indicators of prey-size preference in the Felidae".
Distal transverse diamter/humerus length values for P. tigris:
0.2867
0.2411*
0.23704
0.24826
0.25972
0.25435*
0.27485*
0.27322*
0.26806
0.25425
0.26028*
Male. Four others unknown.
*Definitely from the zoo. Most of the others are unknown; 3rd from India; 9th the Malaysian specimen mentioned earlier.

The difference between these values shows a range much larger than that suggested by those two specimens (difference 0.0003).
For comparison, out of these 11 values-only a single pair out of the 55 possible pairs produces a difference equal to or smaller than 0.0003.


Christiansen and Harris (2005) did not use greatest or transverse distal humeral epiphysis; neither of these measurements was taken by that article.
The closest was humeral articular width.
"Total articular width of the distal humerus
and femur are given as the lateromedial diameter from the me-
dial face of the medial condyle to the lateral face of the lateral
condyle, excluding the epicondyles (Fig. 1E).


P. t. subspecies: Articular width/humerus length = ratio
P. t. tigris: 54.9/310= 0.177
P. t. tigris: 51.4/284.5= 0.181
P. t. altaica: 66.6/372.5= 0.179
P. t. altaica: 70.4/360.5= 0.195
P. t. altaica: 63.2/350.0= 0.181

Note the length of the first of the siberian tiger humeri!

For comparison, here are the corresponding ratios from Meahen-Samuels and Van Valkenburgh 2009 (I'm using "HTL – widest measurement of the trochlea and condyle"*):
0.18496
0.15474
0.16876
0.16562
0.17808
0.17854
0.17961
0.19566
0.18106
0.16981
0.18433
Average: 0.176

*Same issue as discussed earlier in this post on transverse vs greatest diameter across distal epiphysis, except in this case it is merely across the articular area.

Based on images of the articular areas of humeri, it is obvious diameter is much greater in the ML direction than AP.

I do have some level of concern however. Consider a rectangle with length (ML diameter) much greater than width (AP diameter): the problem is the the diagonals will still have a greater length. However, the shape is not a rectangle, meaning this might be a non-issue.

The fact that the mean above was lower than even the lowest of the above values does suggest that any error from possible differences in this case is minimal.

Off the digression, and back to the point: the Christiansen and Harris (2005) tiger specimens probably have relatively wider (ML or greatest) distal humeral epiphysis/humerus length than the Meachen-Samuels and Van Valkenburgh (2009) sample.


GuateGonjira wrote:
By the way, I worked several ratios of Skulls
size (Greatest and Condylobasal lengths) and Pm4 lengths, form Bengal, Amur and
Javanese tigers. I will put them here to help us. However, if we are going to
use modern tigers, I will suggest to use primary specimens from Indochina, not
from Java, if we are going to estimate the size of the Wanhsien tiger. I am
tempted to use Amur tigers (which we have more data), but the problem is that
the Amur and the Bengal tigers are the most recent subspecies to evolve in
Asia, so they must be, apparently, the most different from the ancient tiger.

 

Other theory proposed by GrizzlyClaws is that
there were already tigers in Manchuria when the new evolved Caspian tigers re-colonized
the Amur region and they maybe interbreed and produced the modern Amur tiger
that all we know. If this is correct, then we could use comfortably the data of
the Amur tiger and compare them with those from Indochina.

 

It is an interesting fact that Java-Bali
tigers have the largest dentition, in relation to its skull length, than the
other tiger subspecies. This is together with the fact that Sonda tigers have
the less developed sagital crest of all the tigers. 


Please keep us updated. IIRC, Javan tigers were Peter's favourite when it comes to skull morphology? Epitome of the tiger skull? More primitive isn't what I would have expected.

But my memory has failed me before...          

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Nov 5 13 5:01 AM

* Ursus arctos middendorffi:

Thanks for the ratios; it seems that the prehistoric tigers had the same ratio than modern tigers. I am interesting in the document that you mention (Forelimb indicators of prey-size preference in the Felidae). Could you put the link for it?

 

Now, about the measurements on Christiansen& Harris (2005), I read it again and I found that they taken the “distal articular width” and the “least circumference of the diaphysis”, the “anteroposterior diameter of the diaphysis” and the “lateromedial diameter of the diaphysis”. The distal articular width is based solely in condyles, which are unknown for the prehistoric tigers. The measurements that interest us are the last three, which we completely have. Check that these measurements are focused in the distal area of the bone.

 

* About the Ratios in P. t. corbetti:

I quoted this part (above, from Tigerluver) because I obtained the same values. I believe that if we use the average figures we will probably give more or less reliable figures. I will bet for single values, co-specific measurements, although. However, when I used the extreme values, I obtained these results:

 

Largest CBL: 312.5 mm

Largest Pm4L: 37.2 mm

Ratio: 8.4005

Estimated size: 352.8 mm.

 

Smaller CBL: 266 mm

Smaller Pm4L: 33.4 mm

Ratio: 7.9641

Estimated size: 334.5 mm.

 

In this case, I believe that the figures from the average are more reliable, but the results for the large Pm4 of the Wanhsien tiger is a skull of the same size than the largest modern Amur-Bengal tiger and of the same size than the largest skull recorded at this moment for the Ngandong tiger.

 

Now, let’s use the data from Pocock (1939) on 7 specimens from Burma, three of them males and those which I going to use. The ratio available for those three males is of 8.34 for CBL-Pm4 and of 9.49 for GSL-Pm4. Using the ratios, the size of the skull, for the P4m of 42 mm will be of:

GSL: 350.3 mm

CBL: 398.6 mm

 

These new data is, I believe, more reliable because even if the sample is small, we are using direct and correlated measurements. On the other hand, the data from the large sample of skulls from J. Mazák doesn’t present the same size in the sample, so the use of the average in this case will be incorrect, unfortunately.

 

Now, let’s use the Amur tiger; the ratios are 9.19 for CBL-Pm4 (n=8) and 10.45 for GSL-Pm4 (n=8). The results for the 42 mm Pm4 are:

CBL: 386.0 mm

GSL: 438.9 mm

 

In this case, the result is higher than previous estimations, larger than any modern Bengal-Amur tiger recorded at this day.

 

Just for fun, let’s see the data from Bengal and Javan tigers, now with larger samples:

 

Bengal tigers: 8.59 for CBL-Pm4 (n=16) and 9.69 for GSL-Pm4 (n=17).

CBL: 360.8 mm

GSL: 407.0 mm

 

Javan tigers: 8.54 for CBL-Pm4 (n=8) and 9.74 for GSL-Pm4 (n=11).

CBL: 358.7 mm

GSL: 409.1 mm

 

Here is the compilation of the results, using the large Pm4 of 42 mm of the Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens):

                                   GSL (mm)     CBL (mm)

Javan tiger:                  409.1              358.7

Indochinese tiger:    398.6              350.3              Single specimens

Indochinese 2:          387.6              340.7              from the average figures

Amur tiger:              438.9              386.0

Bengal tiger:               407.0              360.8

Overall average       408.2              359.3

 

This are the results, using all possible related modern tigers, the largest Pm4 of the Wanhsien tiger seems to had belonged to a large specimen, check that the average of all the results gives a size about the same than the largest Amur-Bengal tiger skulls recorded. Now, who is the most reliable data, Amur or Indochinese? Well, that will be decided in base of which evolutionary theory we believe.

 

Now, apart from the size issue, we can state now that relative to its skull size, Amur tigers have the smallest dentition while the Indochinese tigers have the largest one (we need more specimens to corroborate this last one). It is important to show that while the Amur tiger has the largest sagital crest of all the tigers, the Javanese tigers have the smaller, but they also have larger dentition.

 

  About the diameter of the bones

When I read the document of Christiansen & Harris (2005) the first time, I noted that the diameters for the bones are really small, in comparison with other data. The answer was simple when I began using them formulas. The diameters, which are from the distal part of the bone are divided by two, in other words, they published the radios.

 

Let’s see the original table with a few correction:

image

 

The corrections are: the male Amur tiger CN5698 real weight is 230 kg, not 220 kg like is noted in the original table; the lion CN7321 and CN6043 are males and the CN6221 is a female. This was corrected in latter documents from Christiansen.

 

The anteroposterior diameter and the lateromedial diameter are divided by two, why? I don’t know but when you double the values, you will get the real diameter with all the bones. The circumference, on the other hand, is correct and as it says “least” it means that all these measurements (circumference and diameters) correspond to the distal part of the dyaphisis. All the other measurements correspond to the distal epiphysis.

 

In this case, the comparative measurements are:

 

Ngandong tiger femur:

Weight (“weighted”): 394 kg

Length: 480 mm

Anteroposterior diameter (distal): 82 mm

Lateromedial diameter (distal): 88 mm

Least circumference: 133.5 mm

 

Amur tiger 1:

Weight (real): 221 kg

Length: 429.5 mm

Anteroposterior diameter (distal): 62.4 mm

Lateromedial diameter (distal): 68.2 mm

Least circumference: 102.5 mm

 

Amur tiger 2:

Weight (real): 225 kg

Length: 408.5 mm

Anteroposterior diameter (distal): 62.8 mm

Lateromedial diameter (distal): 67.2 mm

Least circumference: 102 mm

 

Amur tiger 3:

Weight (real): 230 kg

Length: 411 mm

Anteroposterior diameter (distal): 64.2 mm

Lateromedial diameter (distal): 66.8 mm

Least circumference: 102.5 mm

 

Now, you can obtain the others by inference with these specimens above. smiley: smile

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help