Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Nov 5 13 5:02 AM

Grizzlyclaws:

In this correlation, i see that 394kg male is equivalent to B2 in the world of the Ngandong tiger.

image         
 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#23 [url]

Nov 5 13 5:07 AM

I wouldn't do BM/FL

Femur length is a linear, or one dimensional, measurement.

Body mass is cubic, or three dimensional.

Basically, consider cubes with a density of 1 g/cm^3 (ie, the same dense as water).


One cube is 2 cm long, and the other is 3 cm long.
The first cube would weigh 8 grams (2cm*2cm*2cm*1g/cm^3= 2^3*1g= 8g), and the second cube 27 grams (3cm*3cm*3cm*1g/cm^3= 3^3*1g= 27g).

8/2= 4
27/3= 9
Completely different BM/Length, even though both are the exact same shape!

Same happens when comparing animals.


Now, cubes scale "isometrically" by definition.
Isometric scaling means with geometric similarity. If you shrunk a cube down, and had it keep all the exact same relative proportions, it would be isometric scaling. Of course, if you changed the proportions it would stop being a cube... Which is why they're easy to use for the first example. Rectangles and cats can have a lot more shapes.

Under isometric scaling area scales to the 2nd power relative to linear measurements. Volume & mass to the third power relative to linear measurements.
Relative to area measurements, linear measurements scale to the 0.5 power (ie square root) and volume & mass measurements scale to the 1.5 power.
Relative to volume & mass measurements, linear measurements scale to the 1/3 power (ie cube root) and area measurements scale to the 2/3 power.


I just think about how a cube's measurements change with size, and it is all really intuitive.



Basically, what this means is this:
BM/FL is not a good way to compare animals.
Either:
BM/FL^3
Or, better yet:
BM^(1/3)/FL

IMO the latter is better, as the units will be linear. Thus nicer for comparison purposes.


Now, the problem is:
Animals do not scale isometrically

Do you see the formula I had for body mass vs femur length?

The important number is in bold:
Body Mass=10^(2.97404*LOG(Femur Length)-5.46089)


For those who don't remember:
log(m^n) = n*log(m)

Meaning...

Femur length^2.97404 scales to body mass!
Again, 2.97404 not 3, as would be assumed under isometric scaling.


Christiansen & Harris (2005) found even lower numbers: 2.853 for w/ L. lynx, and 2.712 for w/out L. lynx.

What this means is that, as femur length increases, body mass increases more slowly than expected by isometry.
This is referred to as allometry. Body mass scales against femur length with negative allometry.


Bigger cats have relatively longer femurs than smaller cats.


A number over 3-such as with tibia length vs body mass- means that as tibia length increases, body mass grows faster than expected by isometry. Bigger cats have relatively shorter tibias. Body mass scales against tibia length with positive allometry.
Bigger cats also have higher femur length/tibia length ratios, meaning they are less cursorial.



...so, yes, I am well aware that proportions change with size. And the formulas take that into account.

The problem, however, is if how things change with size, changes with size.
Over some size ranges some animals scale isometrically, and then over others they scale allometry. And this differs based on animal groups-and the demand that animal group faces, too!

Felid humerus resistance to bending in the ML direction (specifically, their ML 2nd moment of area) and their cortical area have positive allometry vs GM (a proxy for body mass)- while those of canids do not.
Perhaps because the humeri of bigger cats face ever heavier demands to resist the struggles of prey animals, while canids use their forelimbs differnetly...
The only clear difference between canids and felids
seemed to be in the relative allometry of cortical variables.
When tested against an isometric slope value of one, canids
were not significantly different from isometry for CA or Iy
when regressed against GM, although felids were for all
variables, even when lions and tigers were excluded from
the analysis. Although there was no statistically significant
difference in slopes between families, felids always had a
higher slope value than canids, suggesting that there is a
subtle trend toward thicker cortical bone in felids. Bertram
and Biewener (1990) and Meachen-Samuels and Van
Valkenburgh (2009b) found similar results when they
examined the external osteology of canids and felids. Felids
always displayed greater positive allometry in the humerus
than did canids; however, Bertram and Biewener (1990)
found that canids demonstrated positive allometry more
frequently than felids with regard to the femur. It is possible
that a larger sample size of individual species may reduce
the risk of Type II error and elucidate significant differences
between humeral cortical bone in these two families that
were not found in this study (Jacquemont et al. 2009).

From Meachen-Samuels (2010).

Iy^0.25 scaled with a slope of 1.258 for felids, and 1.068 for canids.

Iy = 2nd moment of area in the ML direction. To 0.25 power, because 2nd moment of area is a four dimensional measurement.
If the author used Iy instead of Iy^0.25, a slope of 4 would have meant isometry.


~~~


If you want to find a scaling constant, you can follow the method I used.

Input all the data into a program like excel or libreoffice calc. I use the latter, because I'm dirt poor and it's free. Google docs is also a great option; I've uploaded some of my spreadsheets to google docs.
In another column, put in the forumula =log(click on the body mass value in the same row). Copy and paste down the column, so you have log values for all the body mass figures.
Then do the same for the femur lengths, so you have log values for all the femur lengths.

Now, in another cell type:
=slope(select all the log body mass values,select all the log femur length values)

Now it will give you the scaling slope. If it = 3, it means femur length scales isometrically- as has been discussed before. The value is probably going to be a bit lower.

You can also select a new cell, and type:
=intercept(select all the log body mass values,select all the log femur length values)

You  have now produced a formula for estimating body mass.


log(body mass)=slope value*log(femur length)+intercept value
body mass=10^(slope value*log(femur length)+intercept value)



Please let me know if you have any questions.



You can use this to calculate all sorts of different scaling exponents. To learn how BM scales to FL among different animal groups and over different size ranges.

On that note, using the info on the 7 tigers and 4 lions I posted about above, I got a scaling exponent of 3.16. Meaning among these cats, body mass scales with positive allometry on femur length. Femur length has negative allometry.

Using the formula from just this small sample, I got a body mass estimate of 348.7 kg for the 480 mm femur.


Spreadsheet programs also make all sorts of calculations extremely fast and easy. And make it no problem to do huge numbers of them.


~~~

Mean percent errors on the 3 lions and 5 tigers from Christiansen & Harris (2005) of the different equations:
w/ L. lynx: 0.09514
w/out L. lynx: 0.07534
C1999: 0.09704
The one from my last post: 0.06952
The one I just made, using only lions and tigers*: 0.0649

*Do note that the others, having been created on far larger bases of animals (much broader in terms of size), may thus be more trustworthy when we're venturing outside of the size range used to create them.

EDIT:
You made a lot of posts while I was writing this, and have obviously been using spreadsheet programs as well. Good.
I do want to point out that here:
image
You found a scaling constant of 2.894. And here:
image
2.9138.

I'd also like to point out that the *10^-6 is equivalent to 10^(......-6) in the log form equations I've been using.



If you think about all the meanings the numbers have, and their connections with each other many things become clear.
The battle then turns to having the data to analyze...          

Quote    Reply   

#26 [url]

Nov 5 13 5:14 AM

Panthera youngi

image
image
image
image
image

Wanhsien tiger and South Chinese tiger

image


Prehistoric Javan tiger

image           

Guate:

I think you will found this conversation interesting.

http://prehistoric-fauna.com/Ngandong-tiger

http://prehistoric-fauna.com/panthera-tigris-acutidens

 

If you remember, Roman Uchytel made a first image of the Wanhsien tiger in the snow, latter we update it to the one in the forest. Now, thanks to the petition of the people, he made an image of the Ngandong tiger, but he made it in the snow, which his incorrect, so I message him and suggested that his Ngandong tiger in the snow should be his Wanhsien tiger and the other way with the other tiger. So, now we have the two tigers in the correct places.

 

By the way, here is the evolutionary history of the tiger that I posted there. Here, I already corrected the length of the P. l. fossilis femur (470 instead of 475) and "mm" instead of "cm". Let’s hope he will not get mad with so much information:

 

In fact, there was not just "one" tiger in Pleistocene Java. The fossil record show that the first "true" tiger lived in Java during the early-middle Pleistocene and it was the Panthera tigris trinilensis. However, this relative small tiger invaded mainland, replacing the primitive China tigers and gives origin to the large Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens). Latter by the upper Pleistocene, a second wave from China invaded the Sonda shelf (Sumatra, Java, Bali and Borneo, together), replacing the local tiger population (which in that time, was the Panthera tigris oxignata). So, by the final of the Pleistocene, there were two large tiger species, the 250-300 kg Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) in mainland (China to Beringia) and the even larger 370-470 kg Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) from the Sonda shelf (Groves, 1992; Hertler & Volmer, 2007).

 

By end of the Pleistocene (75,000 - 106,000 ago), the great Toba eruption destroyed almost all the ecosystem of southern Asia and its species, forming several genetic bottle necks, and according with Luo et al. (2004), the last remnant tiger population that inhabit the north of Indochina, gives origin to all the modern mainland tigers (the South China-North Indochina tiger Panthera tigris amoyensis was the first of these new mainland tigers (Luo et al., 2004; Driscoll et al., 2009)). In other words, the large Wanhsien tiger is the direct ancestor of the entire modern mainland "Panthera tigris" (tigris, altaica, virgata, corbetti, amoyensis and jacksoni).

 

The island tigers (Java and Bali) are the last remnant of the giant Ngandong tiger, which already showed the particularly narrow occipital with is characteristic of the Javanese tiger. This suffer from Island dwarfism and by the early Holocene, they were already of the size of an average South China tiger. The Sumatran tiger seems to be a hybrid between the mainland population and the Javanese tigers that repopulated the area. The genetic studies of Cracraft et al. (1998) and Luo et al. (2004), together with the morphological analysis of Mazák & Groves (2006) and Mazák (2010) support the "species" status of Sumatran tigers (Panthera sumatrae).

 

Interesting as it is, the evolutionary history of the tiger is interesting and based in several re-colonization, not just one simple migration from north to south like is suggested by early studies (Mazák, 1981; Heptner & Sludskii, 1992). Sorry for the long post, but I have literally tons of data about the evolution history of the tiger and I am preparing a paper about the Ngandong tiger from some time ago, but the body mass estimations are the hard part. Hope that Roman can use all this data to.

 

By the way, is important to mention that the largest femur found of the Ngandong tiger (P. tigris soloensis) measured 480 mm, which is slightly larger than the largest femur recorded for Panthera atrox (460 mm) and Panthera (leo) fossilis (470 mm). Christiansen & Adolfssen (2008) present a morphological table that shows that even when a tiger and a lion had similar sized femur, the same tiger is substantially longer in the body and heavier in body mass than the lion in question. This suggests that this great tiger was possibly the true largest cat of all times. I have more data about this, if you need it. Greetings to all.

 

Here are the new images of Roman Uchytel, a great digital artist.

* Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis):

image


* Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens):

image


Greetings to all. smiley: smile
 

Quote    Reply   

#27 [url]

Dec 24 13 3:11 AM

Transportation of the information

Hello KingT.

As the situation at AVA is worst every day, specially with BrotherLove posting insulting things and pornography, I decided to end my post there, as there is no type of moderation.

All my next information about the Ngandong tiger will be put here, as this is the only place, at the moment, were we still have moderation over the posts.

Just one thing, how do you copy-paste the posts from AVA? I will like to transport some posts here, in order to not lost that specific data.

Greetings.

Quote    Reply   

#29 [url]

Dec 24 13 3:57 AM

Hi GrizzlyClaws. Good to see you here. We can continue our conversation about the Ngandong tiger and other prehistoric cats here.

By the way, here are some tags that can help the people to found this new place:

"Ngandong tiger"
"Panthera tigris soloensis"
"Giant tiger"
"Giant Pleistocene tiger"
"Pleistocene tigers"
"Trinil tiger"
"Wanhsien tiger"
"Panthera tigris acutidens"
"Giant Manchurian tiger"
"Raúl Valvert"
"Sonda tigers"
"Giant tigers"

Let's hope this help.


Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#30 [url]

Dec 24 13 3:59 AM

GuateGojira wrote:



I can't see my own post, maybe there is some technical issues?
      

Last Edited By: Kingtheropod Dec 24 13 4:06 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#31 [url]

Dec 24 13 4:00 AM

GuateGojira wrote:
Hello KingT.

As the situation at AVA is worst every day, specially with BrotherLove posting insulting things and pornography, I decided to end my post there, as there is no type of moderation.

All my next information about the Ngandong tiger will be put here, as this is the only place, at the moment, were we still have moderation over the posts.

Just one thing, how do you copy-paste the posts from AVA? I will like to transport some posts here, in order to not lost that specific data.

Greetings.


Hi Guate

In order to copy, all I do is highlight all the information in a post made by a poster, right click and then go to copy and then paste in the reply box in the topic I want to put it.smiley: smile
  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#34 [url]

Dec 24 13 4:19 AM

Kingtheropod wrote:
@Grizzly

Let us know when the problem is fixed. I'll check to see what is wrong

The system told me that my post can only be seen when it has been approved by the moderation. 

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Dec 24 13 4:31 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#35 [url]

Dec 24 13 6:36 AM

Clarifications about the Ngandong tiger.

This post is dedicated for all the new readers and those who have created they own pages about the Ngandong tiger.

 

Surfing on the internet I have found that the existence of the Ngandong tiger is now very know by many people and there are many webpages dedicated to this great cat, in English-Spanish-Chinese, etc. This are very good news, but there is something that I need to say here.

 

Sadly, although there is even a Wikipedia page now, the facts on it are not straight with the topic in AVA. It is obvious that 99.99% of all the information from this tiger came from this full topic, however, there is not always a clear coherence on those webpages that are only copy-pasting the information that I have post here, without reading all the post correctly.

 

For example, if you read some of those pages, they claim that Christiansen & Adolfssen (2007) were the ones that calculated the body size at 230 cm for this tiger and that they estimated a weight of 320 kg for this great cat. However this is a GREAT confusion. It was I who calculated the body length and the estimation of 320 kg. Funny at it is, I used the data from Christiansen, but now, this pages state that it was him who estimated it.

 

The problem came with the fact that with time, someone is going to read that document of 2007 and it will see than that paper from 2007 mention NOTHING about the Ngandong tiger. In this case, all of us will be called liars. However, I invite to all new poster or reader to see the ENTIRE topic and not just a few posts.

 

In order to inform all future readers, let’s see the facts and clarify the situation:

 

1. The measurements from the fossils came directly from Von Koenigswald (1933). Now, we even have the pictures of the bones.

 

2. The only official estimation of weight (between 140-470 kg, from several specimens) came from Hertler & Volmer (2006) and it was based in several formulas (Anyonge and Van Valkenburgh) depending if it was a long bone or dentition.

 

3. The estimation of the body length of 230 cm came from me (GuateGojira) and is based in the three tiger specimens described in the tables of Christiansen & Harris (2005) and Christiansen & Adolfssen (2007); I also used the data from Mazák (1967) from Amur tiger sizes-skulls. I extrapolate the values from the modern tiger measurements to the large bones and calculated a straight line measurement from the tip of the nose to the root of tail. These also apply to the estimated shoulder height of between 115-120 cm.

 

4. The estimation of “up to 320 kg” for the larger tiger was an old calculation from me, based only in the appreciation of the bones, not in ANY particular formula, so it is invalid. It was until now (year 2013) that I calculated a weight of c.370 kg for the largest specimen, using the formulas of Christiansen & Harris (2005). TigerLuver, using its own formulas estimated a weight of up to 415 kg. Apart from this and the weights from Hertler & Volmer (2006), no one had estimated the weight of this great cat in any other document.

 

5. The Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) and the Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) are TWO different subspecies of tigers. This is important to mention because there is some confusion caused by the misidentification of Roman Uchitel and its webpage. It was just until now that I suggest him to correct this issue, however some webpages, inclusive Wikipedia still mix them like a single subspecies, which is incorrect.

 

6. It is commonly stated that the fossils of the Ngandong tiger (P. t. soloensis) are fragmentary, but this is incorrect. Although it is true that there is not a complete skeleton of this great tiger, the few fossils (a femur, 2 humerus, a complete skull and several dentition with the mandibles) are 99.99% complete. This means that even when they are from different specimens, they are not fragmentary (they are not broken or partially reconstructed, they are complete) and they are in better stage than many other fossils like, for example the “famous” Quercylurus (only one single set of carnassials teeth) or even the Machairudos kabir, which is only known from a fragment of mandible and an incomplete humerus.

 

Let’s hope that the guy that created the Wikipedia page can read this and make the proper corrections to his-her page. Also, I advise to Roman Uchitel to read all this and take in count that it is not possible to compare the Ngandong tiger with the Panthera atrox in body size, because we don’t know if the estimation of 250 cm in head-body length for this last cat was calculated “over curves” or “between pegs”. He claim that Panthera atrox was larger but he forget the fact that using the same formulas from Christiansen & Harris (2005), the Ngandong tiger is heavier than the largest Panthera atrox (370 kg against 351 kg). Finally, on the body size, there is no direct evidence to affirm or denied who of these two cats was the longer-taller.

 

Hope this paragraph helps to clarify all the confusion. This topic is full of information gathered by several posters and me, so to understand it, you should read it completely and if you want, you can communicate with us right here.

 

Greetings. smiley: smile

Quote    Reply   

#36 [url]

Dec 24 13 6:38 AM

The femur of 480 mm from Ngandong

Some months ago, two or three Russian guys, based in the pictures of the Ngandong tiger bones, began to say that the real length of the large femur of P. t. soloensis was 408 mm and that the figure of 480 mm was a misprint. It is already knew the large conversation that began in the Roman Uchitel page, but at the end, we don’t get to any agree.

 

Since then, I began to work in the first accurate comparison images from those long bones (femur and the two large humerus) and the results are very interesting. For time issues, I was unable to post this before, but now, here are my results.

 

1. The simple comparison.

The next image shows the three long bones scaled as they are in the original picture. The measurement rule is scaled based in the humerus of 381 mm.

image

 

The two humerus fit almost perfectly with the measurements published (although the larger humerus is curved beyond any natural form in the picture) but the femur doesn’t. In fact, the image is much distorted and this is clearer by the fact that the distal part seems excessively wide in comparison with the proximal part. Besides, the internal condyle of the femur should be slightly larger than the external condyle, which is evidence that the femur image is twisted. Now, the femur head is correct and the greater trochanter seems slightly lower, which is correct in the Panthera members (Smilodon humerus show a different tendency).

 

Now, the image clearly shows that the femur don’t measure 408 mm, so we can’t exclude that ridiculous and baseless claim from the Russian guys. However, it is interesting that the image suggest a length of 420 mm, although with such a distorted image is impossible (at this first phase) to reach a conclusion.

 

2. Femur from anterior and posterior view.

Now, here is the image with both views of the femur, showing them differences caused by the distorted picture.

image

 

Again, is interesting to see that this other femur picture is also weird. This time, the distal part is correct but the proximal part is badly deformed as the greater trochanter seems higher than the femur head, which is incorrect. Both images show the distal part larger than the proximal, which is also incorrect, but this is caused by the badly taken picture.

 

About the size, this new image suggest a length of slightly over 425 mm, but as the image is not straight, it is possible that, based only on these pictures, the femur length was of 430 mm. This hypothesis will be tested further in this post.

 

3. Bones and measurements.

In this next image I used the measurements published by Dr Von Koenigswald.

image

 

The bones were scales using the greatest length and the transversal wide. Again, the two humerus needs no much adjust, but the femur was so deformed in the pictures that needed a greater work. At the end, using the bones of one modern tiger, the Trinil tiger from Brongersman (1935) and the figures published by Merriam & Stock (1932) for Panthera atrox, I managed to reconstruct the true figure of the femur, showing that the measurements published by Dr Von Koenigswal were not just possible, but also correct.

 

4. The final bones.

This next image shows how the bones will look correctly scaled and using the original measurements. The femur is slender but it fit very well with the form of the Trinil tiger femur.

image

 

For comparison, I used the five tiger specimens published by Christiansen & Harris (2005) in order to get if the wide of the bone was correct or not. I calculated the ratio between the bone length and the distal articular wide of the bone (the transversal wide in the fossils). The results are the next, with measurements in mm:

 

Id.                   Femur length          Femur distal wide  Ratio

CN5667         360.5                          69.5                            5.19                                      

CN5669         341.5                         62.4                            5.47

CN5697         429.5                          78.5                            5.47

CN6049         408.5                         81.2                            5.03   

CN5698         411.0                         76.3                            5.39

Soloensis      480.0                         88.0                            5.45

 

As we can see, the ratio length/distal wide of the femur of P. t. soloensis fits perfectly among the modern tigers, showing that long and slender bones has been a characteristic of tigers since the Pleistocene. In this case, the great length of the femur and its relative “small” wide are not discordant factors. It will be good to compare also the proximal wide, but sadly there are no bone measurements published from this part (at least, not know by me).

 

5. The final comparison.

In this last image, we can see the original bones from the pictures of the book, latter the bones scaled at 430 mm, as is suggested by the same pictures and finally the real size of 480 mm, as was presented by Dr Von Koenigswald.

image

 

The possibility of a femur of 430 mm seems plausible if we take in count that this scaled size almost fit with the original images. However, we must not forget that these original images don’t represent the real form of the bone. Besides, this bone is localized in the inner part of the book and is practically impossible to get an accurate image without tear the paper or damaging the book. I suggest trust in the measurements of Dr Von Koenigswald, after all, he worked with the real bones.

 

I think that the people must stop creating baseless excuses about the measurements, like “it is a misprint” or “it doesn’t fit with real bones”. As I have proved, the measurements are not only possible, but also fit very well in the tiger morphological standards. Besides, I heavily doubt that such a famous Paleontologist like Dr Von Koenigswald will just past this “misprint” mistake without taking actions to correct it.

 

Other mistake from the Russian guys is to compare Pleistocene lion (Panthera spelaea) bones with tiger bones. Hemmer (2011) stated very well that Pleistocene lions were more massive than modern lions at the same size, and taking in count the fact that modern lions have wider bones than modern tigers and that tigers have about the same bone-wide since the Pleistocene, the comparison between all of them are impossible as represent different morphological parameters.

 

6. Conclusion.

The possibility that the femur measured 408 mm was completely discarded and although the image suggested another length (430 mm), it is impossible to affirm if this new length is correct, especially by the state of the original pictures, taken from the book.

 

About the length of 480 mm, it has been proved that the bone dimensions are not only plausible but they are real and match with the modern tiger bones. It will be good to include other comparative measurements in the future, with other tiger bones, but for the moment, it has been proved that the size of the large femur of the Ngandong tiger is real and most be trusted as it came from the Dr Von Koenigswald himself.

 

Again, here is the final image with the correct size of these three long bones:

image

 

Let’s not forget this paragraph:

image

 

It seems that Dr Hemmer (1971, 1979) also studied those fossils and concluded that those tigers were as large as or larger than the modern ones, corroborating the great sizes reported by Dr Von Koenigswald.

 

Here is the source of this last paragraph, which is a document of Dr Seidensticker (1986):

http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/8206/1/71440cc3-e3f8-487f-981f-2c9a3309783e.pdf

 

Greetings to all. smiley: smile

Quote    Reply   

#38 [url]

Dec 24 13 6:59 AM

No KingT, they don´t provide any evidence. In fact, if you see they post, they only "think" that the bones doesn't match. However, my comparisons and the measurements of the bones of modern tigers shows that they size is correct together with its proportions.

In this case is 100% safe to say that this femur do measured 480 mm, and is still a record for any great cat in modern and prehistoric history.


Quote    Reply   

#39 [url]

Dec 24 13 7:06 AM

The fossils of the Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis)

The Ngandong tiger (Panthera tigris soloensis) in know for a few specimens. However, its fossils are complete and are in much better conditions than other great cats, like Quercilurus major (only a single fragment of a lower manidble) or Machairodus kabir (a few dentaries and an incomplere humerus):


1. One complete skull of c.388 mm, just slightly broken in the far end. (other measurements available).
2. One complete femur of 480 mm. (other measurements available).
3. A complete humerus of 381 mm. (other measurements available).
4. Other complete humerus of 373 mm. (other measurements available).
5. A fragmentary left lower mandible with a full M1 of 30 mm.
6. A complete lower mandible with a full M1 of 26 mm.
7. A fragmentary right lower mandible with a full M1 of 25 mm.
8. A fragmentary left lower mandible with a M1 of 24 mm.
[Here only length measurements are quoted, for purposes of calculating weight with available formulas of Christiansen & Harris, Sorkin, Van Valkenburg and Anyonge]

All these fossils came from differente animals and from two diferent locations: Ngandong and Watoealang, both in Java and at the same geological level.

All these specimens show animals of the same size than modern tigers, except for the Humerus of 381 cm and the large Femur of 480 cm.

If we compare them with the large bones of the Amur tigers published by Christiansen and Harris (2005), we can see that they are slightly more robust. The femur looks very slender in comparison with other great cats, however, we most take in count that based in a few specimens, tiger bones seems to be slender in comparison with those of the lions (although for a small margin). If we compare the wide of this femur with the largest of the Panthera atrox and Panthera (leo) spelaea, the difference of wide is of less than 1 cm, about the same between the Amur tigers and the male lions.

The last specimen (M1 of 24 mm.) is not from Ngandong but from Trinil, so this is a Trinil tiger (Panthera tigris trinilensis) not Ngandong tiger. This is corroborated by the original thesis of Volmer (2005) and the document of Brongersman (1935) from were it came the original measurements of the dentition of the Pleistocene tigers of Java.

Why Hertler & Volmer (2007) included this specimen in the Ngandong fauna, while the thesis of Volmer (2005) clearly show the contrary? I don't know, but this is a little correction that most be made.

Quote    Reply   

#40 [url]

Dec 24 13 7:10 AM

Fossils of the Panthera atrox

Heres is the full data from Panthera atrox:


Skull (males and females)
image

Humerus (males and females)
image

Femur (males and females)
image

All original data from Merriam & Stock (1932). I have the complete osteology of Panthera atrox and Smilodon fatalis, so if you want an especific part, just ask me.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help