Remove this ad

#41 [url]

Dec 24 13 7:12 AM

Weight of Machairodus kabir holotype

The m1 of the holotype of Machairodus kabir measured 34.7 mm in total length. As the formula of Van Valkenburgh (1990) for lower m1 is:

 

Log mass: 3.05 * log m1L – 2.15

 

The resulting body mass is:

 

Log mass: 3.05 * log 34.7 – 2.15

Log mass: 2.548004898

Mass: 353.2 kg.

 

As the range weight estimated for this cat is 350-490 kg, I infer that the lowest figure probably came from the m1. But why they don’t mention this? Maybe is just coincidence. smiley: eyes

 

However, this is not the heaviest of the Machairodus.

 

1. The specimen of M. irtyschensis type PIN 2413/115 had a m1 of 35.5 mm. Its body mass will be 378.6 kg.

 

2. The specimen of M. leoninus from Venta del Moro: MNCN 955 have a m1 of 35.8 mm, which represent a body mass of 388.5 kg.

 

These specimens are larger in other dental measurements than M. kabir, however for comparison with the other cats, we must take in count that this calculation is sensitive to variations in dentition, for example, Machairodus could have longer molars, in relation with the skull, than Panthera. So, the results most be taken with caution.


By the way, we most not forget that the estimation of 490 kg for the humerus was made with the formulas of Anyonge. So, knowing that the formula of Anyonge produce inflated results, the figure of 490 kg is probably invalid.


Also, Peigné et al. (2005) states that the unique right humerus (TM-266-03-208) is broken in its half, but is predicted that it measured between 380-423 mm in its "functional length" which is the distance between the articular surfaces. Then, the greatest length of the humerus should be slightly more. In this case, the humerus of this great cat was indeed huge, specially when we take in count that the largest humerus from Panthera atrox is of 409 mm.


I think that we most not underestimate the possible size of this great cat. After all, even the small estimation (380 mm) represents already a large cat.


Last Edited By: GuateGojira Dec 24 13 7:29 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#42 [url]

Dec 24 13 7:35 AM

Body mass of the Ngandong tiger

Here are my results of the body mass of the Ngandong tiger that I obtained from several formulas.

Id.                   Fossil                 Size                Average weight overall     Average including 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.

 

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.


Is interesting to see that all the specimens of this tiger were of the same size than the largest modern tigers, except for the largest Humerus and the large Femur, and we all know that modern tigers reach weights up to 260 kg empty belly, with a record of up to 320 kg.


Greetings to all. smiley: smile


Last Edited By: GuateGojira Dec 24 13 7:38 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#43 [url]

Dec 24 13 8:00 AM

Weight estimations - by Tigerluver

I deem it best to test the 1999 femur length equation with the 2005 data to see the accuracy of the old equation as you have recommended to do so. I added the 2005 equation itself as well, but as Ursus said, comparing an equation with its own database is not helpful. The results (Lynx lynx excluded):

Gender Species FL (mm) BM (kg) C & H 1999 % Error 1999 C & H 2005 % Error 2005
M Felis catus 119.5 8.4 3.905501 115.08126 6.91547092 21.46678228
M Leopardus pardalis  129.5 6.5 5.098954 27.47712513 8.59954774 24.41462976
M Leopardus pardalis  165 13.9 11.39152 22.02057551 16.5888567 16.20881285
F Puma concolor 276 47 62.79229 25.15004918 66.949206 29.79752438
M Puma concolor 240 45.7 39.49216 15.7191662 45.8282093 0.279760578
M Acinonyx jubatus 251 39 45.82341 14.89066546 51.7505694 24.63851036
M Panthera leo 401 203 216.8718 6.396302328 184.385828 10.09522906
F Panthera leo 372 150 169.0563 11.27218634 150.422379 0.280795318
M Panthera leo 401.5 170 217.7703 21.93609659 185.010003 8.113076537
M Panthera onca 259.5 67.4 51.17735 31.69889299 56.6422539 18.99244007
F Panthera onca 265.5 71 55.20979 28.60037916 60.2646992 17.81358073
F Panthera onca 230.9 51.5 34.73846 48.2506531 41.2672668 24.79624642
M Panthera pardus 231 61 34.78841 75.3457651 41.3157546 47.64343664
M Panthera pardus 248.5 56.7 44.32645 27.91458977 50.3645755 12.57912812
M Panthera tigris tigris 360.5 145 152.3287 4.811098462 138.14243 4.964130508
F Panthera tigris tigris 341.5 115 127.2801 9.648063157 119.276696 3.585525121
M Panthera tigris altaica 429.5 221 272.359 18.85710891 222.12432 0.506167176
M Panthera tigris altaica 408.5 225 230.6244 2.43877252 193.888865 16.04585938
M Panthera tigris altaica 411 230 235.3408 2.269377127 197.123781 16.67795672
F Panthera uncia 225 34.8 31.87951 9.161034944 38.4697168 9.53923527
M Panthera uncia 234.5 43.1 36.56823 17.86186239 43.0355543 0.149749871
F Panthera uncia 230.5 34 34.53919 1.561096415 41.0736749 17.22191872

The results are all over the place. The 1999 equations are more accurate for some species, and less for others as you can see.

I'll take the Christiansen and Harris 2009 approach. We should probably get the same results. My data:
Species FL BM P.t. soloensis Est.
Panthera leo 401 203 480 348.1662
Panthera leo 372 150 480 322.245
Panthera leo 401.5 170 480 290.4798
Panthera onca 259.5 67.4 480 426.5515
Panthera onca 265.5 71 480 419.5546
Panthera onca 230.9 51.5 480 462.657
Panthera pardus 231 61 480 547.2901
Panthera pardus 248.5 56.7 480 408.6275
Panthera tigris tigris 360.5 145 480 342.2756
Panthera tigris tigris 341.5 115 480 319.3371
Panthera tigris altaica 429.5 221 480 308.4796
Panthera tigris altaica 408.5 225 480 365.0313
Panthera tigris altaica 411 230 480 366.3752
Panthera uncia 225 34.8 480 337.8745
Panthera uncia 234.5 43.1 480 369.6345
Panthera uncia 230.5 34 480 307.0364

Average body mass estimation: 371.35 kg


Quote    Reply   

#44 [url]

Dec 24 13 8:19 AM

Specimens of Panthera atrox - by Tigerluver

If anyone is interested, here is a chart showing some bone dimensions of specimens of P. atrox from Racho La Brea cited in Merriam and Stock 1932. In mm, long bones measurements are for greatest length.


Specimen # Skull GSL (2900) Skull CBL (2900) Femur (2907) Tibia (2908) Humerus (2903) Fibula (2909) Ulna (2905)
R-1 N/A N/A 402 400 409 369 438
R-2 N/A N/A 455 382 396 N/A 437
R-3 458 410 460 381 389 N/A 420
R-4 325.8 302 437 369 380 N/A 435
R-5 367 332 435 362 363 N/A 396
R-6 310.3 290 423 355 368 N/A 384
R-7 373.5 336.6 415 353 347 N/A N/A
R-8 391.9 348.7 402 339 337 N/A N/A
R-9 429.5 380.8 393 338 328 N/A N/A
R-10 419.2 368.6 391 338 N/A N/A N/A

Quote    Reply   

#45 [url]

Dec 24 13 8:26 AM

On the tiger species-subspecies debate

Here is a large summary about the different studies about this:

 

Mazák (1981; 1983) stated that there is one tiger species and eight subspecies (although based in very few specimens). Latter, Kitchener (1999) stated that there are no significant differences to show that there are subspecies at all, but based in morphological evidence (few specimens again), stated that there are only three subspecies (1. Mainland, 2. Island and 3. The Caspian).

 

On the genetic side, Cracraft et al. (1998) proposed that there is not enough difference subspecies between the mainland tigers, but that the Sumatran tigers are different enough to separate them like a different species (not even subspecies). Luo et al. (2004; 2010) presented genetic evidence to show that there are in fact, enough genetic evidence to sustain the differentiation of five modern tiger subspecies and even proposed a sixth one (Malayan-jacksoni).

 

Latter, Mazák & Groves (2006), using a morphometric study, stated that there are enough differentiation between mainland tigers (Corbetti only) and the Sonda tigers, to classified them like a different species, but disproved the claim of Luo et al. (2004) about the separation of the Malayan tigers as a subspecies, because they don’t found any difference between them and those from Indochina. The final study of Mazák (2010) on the Craniometrical variation of tigers show, again, that there is great differences between the mainland group and the island group and that the Sumatran tigers were probably a hybrid between the two populations.

 

About the Caspian tigers, Driscoll et al. (2009) found that the Caspian tiger population was genetically undistinguishable from the Amur tigers and proposed to join the two groups into one subspecies (Virgata), discarding the statement of Kitchener (1999) that this group was a different subspecies. Besides, Mazák (2010) also found that the Caspian tigers had many morphological characteristics in common with all the other mainland tigers (disproving Kitchener (1999) again) and that the most different of all the mainland specimens were those from Amur, which were practically the most earlier in evolve.

 

Finally, Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) repeated the same claim from 1999, adding several complaints about all the previous studies, for example:

1. The genetic study of Luo et al. (2004) had not enough specimens and that they can’t explain why Bengal tigers are far away than Sumatran tigers in the graphics.

2. The morphometric study of Mazák & Groves (2006) don’t used other mainland skulls, which according with Kitchener (1999) also present the narrow occiput of the Javanese tigers (although he used fewer specimens than those used by Mazák and Groves).

3. The differentiation of the Malayan tigers is invalid as they don’t present a holotype and the genetic evidence is not enough to establish it as a species.

 

However, they slightly mention the fact that Kitchener (1999) was wrong about the Caspian tigers and that his biogeographic analysis (Kitchener & Dungmore, 2000; repeated in 2010) failed in predict the populations of tigers in that area.

 

Here is what I can quote from memory right now and based in all this, I can state that there are several forms to assimilate all this information. I prepared three cases, which can be used for tiger specification:

 

Case 1 - The most simply form.

Two species:

* Mainland tiger: (Panthera tigris) - no subspecies.

* Island tiger: (Panthera sondaica) - no subespecies.

 

Case 2 - Based in morphometric and genetic analysis

Three species with subspecies (or two and one hybrid):

* Mainland tiger: (Panthera tigris):

            - Bengal tiger (P. t. tigris).

            - Caspian-Amur tiger (P. t. virgata).

            - South China tiger (P. t. amoyensis).

            - Indochina tiger (P. t. corbetti) - including jacksoni.

* Island tigers: (Panthera sondaica):

            - Javan tiger (Panthera sondaica sondaica).

            - Bali tiger (Panthera sodaica balica).

* Sumatran tiger: (Panthera sumatrae (tigris x sondaica)).

 

Case 3 - Proposed by Kitchener.

One species (Panthera tigris) with two subspecies and one hybrid:

* Mainland tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) - only cline variations.

* Island tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica).

* Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae (tigris x sondaica)).

 

Personally, I support the second case, but I will like to know, which are your opinions on all this?

Quote    Reply   

#46 [url]

Dec 24 13 8:31 AM

Dentition of tigers

The estimation of dentition of tigers is problematic, as even when several estimation of ratios exist (I have personally calculated a few), there is not a single analysis of correlation between them (at least, that I had found).

 

With my old database of tigers, I used 19 skull of P. t. tigris, 17 of P. t. altaica and 13 of P. t. sondaica to estimate a correlation value. All specimens are males.

 

Is important to mention that when I made a review on all the ratios of GSL-Pm4 on the Amur tiger skulls, 7 of the 8 values ranged between 10.06 – 10.31, which are not so distant. However, one single value shows a phenomenon figure of 12.42, which present an exceptional specimen. I excluded this odd value in order to follow a more reliable correlation.

 

I calculated the correlation coefficient in order to get the relation between some magnitudes. These are the results:

 

P. t. altaica:

GSL-Pm4      0.98    n=7

CBL-Pm4      0.78   

GSL-m1         0.99    n=3

 

P. t. tigris:

GSL-Pm4      0.56    n=17

CBL-Pm4      0.49   

GSL-m1         0.50   

ML-m1           0.50   

 

P. t. sondaica:

GSL-Pm4      0.67   

CBL-Pm4     0.78    n=8

GSL-m1         0.61   

ML-m1           1.00    n=2

 

* Stronger correlation with large samples is in bold.

 

The results show that there are some morphological differences between the putative subspecies, with Sonda tigers (Java) and Amur tigers having a relative stronger correlation between dentition and skull size in overall measurements. The P. t. altaica samples are very small, but at least suggestive. It is interesting that when I included the phenomenon value in the correlation coefficient, the value “r” drop to 0.34 for GSL-Pm4, showing that this value is not a normal one and most be excluded. Something more, although the Amur tiger shows a correlation of 0.99 for GSL-m1, the sample is too small (n=3) to get a definitive conclusion. It is also fair to mention that it was not possible to construct a correlation between ML-m1 for this group because I have not found any mandible with its m1 related.

 

Sonda tigers are different, with all the correlations been relative strong. The better figure came from CBL-Pm4, with r=0.78, based in 8 specimens. The correlation of ML-m1 is not reliable, because only two specimens were used. Is important to remember that has been suggested that Sonda tigers had larger dentition in relation with the skull size, like a form of adaptation for a better bite, even with a weaker sagital crest.

 

Finally, the Bengal tigers show a mean correlation, with all values about 0.50. The stronger is between GSL-Pm4, with r=0.56 (n=17). Although this value is not high, it is the better represented based in the largest sample.

 

The ratio between GSL-Pm4 for Amur, Bengal and Sonda tigers is of 10.17 (n=7), 9.69 (n=17) and 9.74 (n=11) respectively. The ratio for CBL-Pm4 for Sonda tigers is of 8.54 (n=8). Using the Pm4 of the largest Wanhsien tiger (Panthera tigris acutidens) specimen, which is of 42 mm, the estimated skull size will be:

 

Using P. t. altaica: GSL – 427 mm.

Using P. t. tigris: GSL – 407 mm.

Using P. t. sondaica: GSL – 409 mm; CBL – 359 mm.

 

These are the result estimation, although suggestive, it shows a very large skull for the original owner. Using the correlation coefficient, the most reliable value is that of the Sonda tiger. However, we must take in count that there are some significative differences between mainland tigers and Sonda tigers. In this case, the most reliable will be that of the Amur tiger.

 

Quote    Reply   

#47 [url]

Dec 24 13 8:42 AM

Humerus and Femur robustness

The measurements of the humerus are different in Christiansen document. Reading Merriam & Stock, these are the values that I get from the largest Smilodon fatalis humerus and that of Panthera atrox, compared with the largest humerus of Panthera tigris soloensis.

 

Specimen 2005 – R-1:

Greatest length: 385 mm

Greatest wide of distal part: 125 mm

L/AW = 3.08

 

Now for Panthera atrox:

Specimen 2903 – R-1

Greatest length: 409 mm

Greatest wide of distal part: 107.6 mm

L/AW = 3.80

 

Finally for Panthera tigris soloensis:

Greatest length: 381 mm

Greatest wide of distal part: 102 mm

L/AW = 3.74

 

From this view, the Ngandong tiger is slightly robust in comparison with the largest humerus of P. atrox, but not as much as Smilodon fatalis.


Here are the values for the femur of the largest great cats, only the largest specimens recorded:

 

* Smilodon fatalis:

Specimen: 2005 – R-1

Greatest length: 408 mm

Distal wide: 90.2 mm

L/DW = 4.52

 

* Panthera spelaea fosilis:

Specimen: Mladec 72,190

Greatest length: 470 mm

Distal wide: 99.2 mm

L/DW = 4.74

 

* Panthera atrox:

Specimen: 2903 – R-1

Greatest length: 460 mm

Greatest wide of distal part: 96.4 mm

L/DW = 4.77

 

* Panthera leo:

Specimen: CN6043

Greatest length: 401.5 mm

Distal wide: 83.1 mm

L/DW = 4.83

 

* Panthera spelaea spelaea:

Specimen: Edingen

Greatest length: 465 mm

Distal wide: 88.0 mm

L/DW = 5.28

 

* Panthera tigris soloensis:

Greatest length: 480 mm

Distal wide: 88 mm

L/DW = 5.45

 

* Panthera tigris altaica:

Specimen: CN5697

Greatest length: 429.5 mm

Greatest wide of distal part: 78.5 mm

L/DW = 5.47


Finally, a comparison of humerus from modern cats, made by Tigerluver:

Here's a comparison of bone dimensions from data available:
Lions:
Length HC AW L/HC L/AW
366 116 70.8 3.155172 5.169492
318 94 62.4 3.382979 5.096154
346 113.5 64.9 3.048458 5.331279
L/HC avg.: 3.2
L/AW avg.: 5.2

Tigers:
Length HC AW L/HC L/AW
310 94 54.9 3.297872 5.64663
284.5 84 51.4 3.386905 5.535019
372.5 104 66.6 3.581731 5.593093
360.5 108 70.4 3.337963 5.120739
350 113 63.2 3.097345 5.537975
L/HC avg.: 3.34
L/AW avg.: 5.49

So according to this data, lions have a more robust humerus than tigers.

Quote    Reply   

#48 [url]

Dec 24 13 8:45 AM

I think that the humeri from the Ngandong tiger are slightly robust in comparison with modern tigers, but not by much. Check this image:

image

 

This upper comparison shows the humerus of the two large Ngandong tiger specimens and the Amur tiger specimen of 221 kg from Christiansen, scaled at the real size. Later, if you see in the low images, I scale them at the same size and we can see that the humerus are slightly different in robustness but the difference is minimal.

 

For example, the The Watoealang humerus is from a posterior view, so a turn over the modern tiger humerus for comparison; we can see that the Pleistocene tiger humerus is a few millimeters wider at the proximal part but is a little wider in the distal area, suggesting more robustness and possible higher weight. Check that this particular specimen was smaller than the modern Amur tiger, but probably weighed more, at about 230 kg or slightly over.

 

Now, on the Ngandong humerus, there is no difference in the proximal area and ,at the same size, both will have the same wide, however in the distal part, again we can see that the Pleistocene tiger is slightly wider, suggesting a higher weight at the same size, just like the case of the Cave lion and the modern lion, althoght the difference is not so dramatic as in this last case. I made two different comparisons because the humerus is curved, so a straight comparison was impossible.

 

So, as we can see, the Pleistocene bones are just slightly wider than the modern ones, but the difference is not much significant. Besides, we must take in count that the Amur tiger in comparison is a captive one, so we can guess that wild tigers will have wider bones and then, the difference with the Pleistocene tigers will fall to 0.


In fact the specimen CN6049 is much robust (although shorter) than that of CN5697, but sadly, there is not an image of this bone published. So, a comparison with it is impossible.


Quote    Reply   

#49 [url]

Dec 24 13 8:52 AM

Transference completed

I think that at this point, KingTheropod and I had transported the most important parts of the topic about the Ngandong tiger. The important data is not missed and although some analysis was probably not copied, these can be made again, after all, the questions will arise again with the new data.

 

Tigerluver, if you feel that some data from you is important and has not been copied, you can copy-paste it here again, just like I have done with mine.

 

It will be good to inform to “Ursus Arctos Middendorfi” the change of forum, his/her information is very important and useful.

 

Well, we can continue with our discussion here.

 

Greetings to all.

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#50 [url]

Dec 24 13 11:32 PM

I am waiting for your comparison of the new Javan tiger mandible.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#52 [url]

Dec 25 13 2:55 AM

Panthera spelaea fossilis and Panthera leo both have their largest recorded skull longer than their largest recorded femur, while Panthera atrox also follows this trend.

Only Panthera spelaea spelaea got an exception.

Quote    Reply   

#53 [url]

Dec 27 13 12:51 AM

Mandible comparisons

Here are my latest mandible comparison, with new results and interesting hypothesis on them. Let’s begin.

 

1. Java tiger mandible:

image

The comparison with the new mandible from Java shows that the differences are minimal. The symphysisis match with the Pleistocene mandible and even when it seems that the canine is higher, we must take in count that the bone that cover the lover part of the canine is broken in the fossils, so if it were complete, the bone would probably match. The only differences are the robustness of the mandible bone in the lower part and the straight position of the dentition in the modern cat, but this last differences could be just clinal or simple effects of the evolution,, after all, this are two completely tiger subspecies.

 

2. Javanese tiger skull:

image

Using the picture from a wild Javanese tiger, taken by Peter, we can see that the symphysis is slightly larger this time, in the modern cat, but the mandible bone is of the same massiveness in the lower part. The canine position is slightly different but even then, matches very well with this fossil. The lower dentition is not visible, but I infer that there will be the same differences with the previous mandible.

 

Both mandibles match very well with the Pleistocene tiger, supporting my previous theory that Javanese tigers conserved some of the primitive characteristics of the Wanhsien tiger.

 

3. Amur tiger skull:

image

Here is a captive Amur tiger skull from Peter. Again, it shows that this two subspecies were very different. Both the symphysis and the mandible itself don’t match, showing the great differences thought the evolution of these two distant groups.

 

4. Jaguar skull:

image

Just to enlarge the comparisons, this jaguar from Peter was used with the Pleistocene tiger mandible. The result, completely differences, with much shorter symphysis and slightly broader mandible for its size.

 

5. Panthera spelaea spelaea fossil:

image

This is a new comparison, with the fossil of the cave lion from the Late Pleistocene. Is from interest that the mandible is much robust with the cave lion but the syphysis match very well in the comparison. This could suggest some type of relatedness and this take us to the last comparisons.

 

6. Javanese tiger and Cave lion:

image

The comparison show that incredible the mandibles of both specimens almost match in the form, although the mandible of the tiger is slightly longer in the symphysis, while is more straight in the “lion”. The final part of the mandible is very different, but the frontal one is very close between the two specimens.

 

 7. Final comparison:

image

In this last image I put together the Javanese tiger (bottom), the Cave lion (middle) and the Pleistocene mandible (over-red line). The three present slightly similar mandibles and the Pleistocene mandible seems to be in the middle of the two species.

 

Without changing its original form, I enlarge slightly more the mandible and the result was that the Pleistocene “tiger” is closer overall with the Javanese tiger than with the Cave lion, but the canine position is closer with the “lion” than with the tiger.

 

Surely, this mandible is very primitive and only a deeper comparison will show its true relatedness, but for the moment, the evidence suggests that this animal was closer with the Sonda tiger than with other tiger subspecies or any other great cat species.

 

I will like to read your opinions.

 

Greetings and cheers.

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#54 [url]

Dec 27 13 2:11 AM

So this mandible either belongs to a tiger or a tiger-clade cat. And we have to remember that some tigers also have the overlapped features with lions.

One more thing is for sure is that this specimen is surely matched the largest specimen of Panthera spelaea fossilis.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

engstedt

Posts: 5 Member Since:relative

#56 [url]

Dec 31 13 1:01 AM

Hello! I have a fossil of a lower jaw from a tiger. I have been told its from the Sangiran area in java. Could it be this Panthera tigris soloensis you are talking about?
I have found out by carefully looking at it that some restoration work has been done, to the posterior part of the mandible.
Its quite large. Could the measurements if I provide them be useful to your calculations of body size?

Best regards, Olof

Quote    Reply   

#57 [url]

Dec 31 13 2:42 AM

engstedt wrote:
Hello! I have a fossil of a lower jaw from a tiger. I have been told its from the Sangiran area in java. Could it be this Panthera tigris soloensis you are talking about?
I have found out by carefully looking at it that some restoration work has been done, to the posterior part of the mandible.
Its quite large. Could the measurements if I provide them be useful to your calculations of body size?

Best regards, Olof

Yes, please provide the measurements kind sir smiley: smile. If it is Panthera tigris soloensis, please also provide a picture for us to identify.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#58 [url]

Dec 31 13 4:51 AM

engstedt wrote:
Hello! I have a fossil of a lower jaw from a tiger. I have been told its from the Sangiran area in java. Could it be this Panthera tigris soloensis you are talking about?
I have found out by carefully looking at it that some restoration work has been done, to the posterior part of the mandible.
Its quite large. Could the measurements if I provide them be useful to your calculations of body size?

Best regards, Olof


You are welcomed, and what is the size of that lower jaw? If it is over 30 cm or 12 inches, then it must be an impressive specimen.
  

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Dec 31 13 4:56 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#59 [url]

Dec 31 13 4:52 AM

Kingtheropod wrote:
engstedt wrote:
Hello! I have a fossil of a lower jaw from a tiger. I have been told its from the Sangiran area in java. Could it be this Panthera tigris soloensis you are talking about?
I have found out by carefully looking at it that some restoration work has been done, to the posterior part of the mandible.
Its quite large. Could the measurements if I provide them be useful to your calculations of body size?

Best regards, Olof

Yes, please provide the measurements kind sir smiley: smile. If it is Panthera tigris soloensis, please also provide a picture for us to identify.


King, could you allow engstedt to post directly without the approvement from the moderation? Because i still can't see his post after a while.
  

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Dec 31 13 4:57 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   

#60 [url]

Dec 31 13 6:08 AM

GrizzlyClaws wrote:
Kingtheropod wrote:
engstedt wrote:
Hello! I have a fossil of a lower jaw from a tiger. I have been told its from the Sangiran area in java. Could it be this Panthera tigris soloensis you are talking about?
I have found out by carefully looking at it that some restoration work has been done, to the posterior part of the mandible.
Its quite large. Could the measurements if I provide them be useful to your calculations of body size?

Best regards, Olof

Yes, please provide the measurements kind sir smiley: smile. If it is Panthera tigris soloensis, please also provide a picture for us to identify.


King, could you allow engstedt to post directly without the approvement from the moderation? Because i still can't see his post after a while.
  



I think I solved the problem. I had post screening on this forum and I turned it off. Hopefully it works :)

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help