Remove this ad

avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#61 [url]

Dec 31 13 6:16 AM

Kingtheropod wrote:
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 :)

Hopefully he will come back, because this function is quite annoying and could likely shun a lot of new posters.
  

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

engstedt

Posts: 5 Member Since:relative

#62 [url]

Dec 31 13 12:18 PM

Hello!
I wasnt scared off by the post approval function :)

Of course I can provide some pictures. 

I have not taken any measurements, perhaps you can tell me how its correctly done?
image

image

image

image




Best regards Olof

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#63 [url]

Dec 31 13 4:48 PM

It looks like a big feline's lower jaw, very robust and squarish looking, but this jaw also looks quite damaged and fossilized.

BTW, can you measure it with a ruler? The size of this mandible is crucial for us to determine the skull size of this tiger.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

engstedt

Posts: 5 Member Since:relative

#65 [url]

Jan 1 14 1:16 AM

GrizzlyClaws wrote:
It looks like a big feline's lower jaw, very robust and squarish looking, but this jaw also looks quite damaged and fossilized.

BTW, can you measure it with a ruler? The size of this mandible is crucial for us to determine the skull size of this tiger.

Ok! So its difficult to tell if what species it is? Yes, its very fossilized and heavy. Quite cool, I love it.

Took some pictures. 

image
26 cm like this

image
27 cm likes this.

image
Took some pictures of the teeth. Left mandibles teeth from outside.

image
Right mandibles teeth from inside.

Best regards Olof

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#66 [url]

Jan 1 14 1:30 AM

It seems the jaw measures over 26cm, maybe 28cm.

It is definitely an adult male, its skull should be no less than 40cm, and it is about the size of a large modern male Siberian tiger.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

engstedt

Posts: 5 Member Since:relative

#67 [url]

Jan 1 14 1:44 AM

Nice! Adult male! 
And what species do you think it is, when found in Java, Sangiran? And also, how old could this fossil be?

Happy New Year!

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#68 [url]

Jan 1 14 1:47 AM

engstedt wrote:
Nice! Adult male! 
And what species do you think it is, when found in Java, Sangiran? And also, how old could this fossil be?

Happy New Year!

 


Happy New Year bro!

The first picture looks like the jaw is up to 29cm, since it is partially broken, now it is impossible to determine its real greatest mandible length.

But providing us the current greatest length will be also helpful.

The broken canine has no hole inside, this is also unique feature for adult male tiger according to my personal anecdote.

As for the species, it is the prehistoric Javan tiger, the ancestor of the modern Javan tiger.
  

Quote    Reply   

#69 [url]

Jan 1 14 2:00 AM

Great pictures Olof!
GrizzyClaws is on point with the analysis. The species is probably P. t. soloensis judging by the size.
Also, I am not sure if it is due to camera angle, but I feel like I am seeing the greatest length in the first around 28 cm, and so is GrizzyClaws. Could you please confirm or refute our observation?

Also, on another note, there needs to be some corrections done on the large femur specimens mass which I will show later.

Regards and happy new year!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#70 [url]

Jan 1 14 2:18 AM

Happy New Year tigerluver, i am sure Guate will be excited over this new great finding.

We need engstedt to provide more information of the mandible of this great cat, but it is a massive cat no doubt.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

engstedt

Posts: 5 Member Since:relative

#71 [url]

Jan 1 14 9:33 AM

GrizzlyClaws and Tigerluver,

Thanks for the information you have given. Much appreciated!I will try serve you with the measurements you want.
But now the first day of the year I will go to Hungary for a wedding, back in 5 days.

Best regards, Olof

 

Quote    Reply   

#73 [url]

Jan 3 14 8:58 AM

engstedt wrote:
Hello!
I wasnt scared off by the post approval function :)

Of course I can provide some pictures. 

I have not taken any measurements, perhaps you can tell me how its correctly done?
image

image

image

image




Best regards Olof

 

Happy New Year to ALL!!!! smiley: happy

 

Hello engstedt/Olof, pleased to meet you.

 

This new fossil from you is very interesting, not only by its size but also from its place of origin (Sangiran).

 

The measurements and the pictures that you provided are of great help and suggest a huge specimen, about the same size than the largest mandible recorded from modern tigers (276 mm; Mazák, 1983).

 

Now, I will like to discuss two points about the fossil:

 

1. What really concerns me is the form of the mandible. The fossils seem too large and disproportioned. For example, the symphysis is too large and wide for a cat. Nor even the great Panthera atrox or the Cromerian lion (Panthera spelaea fossilis) presents such a large mandible. I compare it with some modern tigers and with those from Ngandong and even then, this new mandible is too large in the frontal part; the distance between canines is too large and its look like if the bone suffered of some kind of inflammation! Checking the following images, my suspicions seems to be correct:

image

image

image

 

The new mandible doesn’t look like a normal cat at all.

 

2. Other problem is the little size of the carnassials. They are too small in comparison with the robust bone. The images that I used for comparison show that the lower Pm3 is located in a relative thinner area of the mandible, which is not the case of this new mandible.

 

These two factors, apart from the origin itself make me doubt about the authenticity of this mandible. Please don’t get offended, that’s NOT my intention, but I have saw many skulls and mandibles from tiger-lion modern and prehistoric and this mandible simple don’t fit in all those cases.

 

I will like to know where and how you found this mandible. If you buy it, could you please give details of the seller? It is very important to have any possible detail of the mandible; after all, there are several falsifications to sale on the web. The most famous case is that of the Miocene Asian “cheetah” that Dr Christiansen and Dr Mazák described but at the end, it was only a very good falsification using parts several other felids.

 

Please, give me the advantage of the doubt and if you can provide more evidence of the authenticity of this mandible, it will help you to present a better case. I hope you can understand my concerns here.

 

Greetings to all.

 



Quote    Reply   

#74 [url]

Jan 3 14 9:07 AM

The dark secret of Ngandong

Guys, check this interesting article. Although the page itself is somewhat “fantastical” in its articles, the information is very interesting and presents a plausible scenario just like the one in Europe with the Neanderthals.

 

Yes, I know that the article is not about tigers, but as Ngandong is the zero zone here, I think is interesting that tigers were not the only “hunters” in the area.

 

Enjoy it!

 

Friday, May 17, 2013

The Arrival of the Out of Africa Tribe in Sundaland

image

 

When the Out Of Africa Tribe made its way into Sundaland they found the Ngandong Hominins (Solo Men) already in residence.

 

Definition: The Ngandong hominin skulls are eleven skull caps, remains of human ancestors found in 1931 near the Solo River in Java, Indonesia. They are a part of the human ancestry puzzle because the morphology of the skulls appears to fit both Homo erectus or an archaic form of Homo sapiens.

 

Dating the Ngandong Hominins

The first dates on the skulls put them at 100,000 years before the present, while Homo sapiens aren't known in this part of the world until about 40,000 years ago and Homo erectus is thought to have died out well before 100,000 years ago. Some researchers believe the skulls represent a small colony of Homo erectus that survived long after the rest had died off. Recent dates seem to suggest that the skulls are actually between 27,000 and 50,000 years old, which would definitely fit the timing of archaic Homo sapiens more comfortably. However, these dates were taken on faunal remains that other researchers believe are not the same age as the hominins.

 

Sources

Bartstra, Gert-Jan, Santosa Soegondho, and Albert van der Wijk. 1988. Ngandong man: age and artifacts. Journal of Human Evolution 17:325-337Grün, Rainer and Alan Thorne. 1997. Dating the Ngandong Humans. Science 276 (5318):1575-1576. (free download)Swisher III, C. C. et al. 1997. Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science 274(5294):1870-1874. (free download)This glossary entry is part of the Dictionary of Archaeology.

 

Also Known As: Solo man

http://archaeology.about.com/od/nterms/g/ngandong.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_Man

The line of descent was thought to go like this, and this descent seems to be partly true, for a section of the population:

image

 

And the Solo skullcaps represent defeated enemies. Their heads were removed, skulls scraped clean. and the skullcaps stuck up on stakes driven into the ground as a warning. Some accounts say their shinbones were used as the stakes. This was between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago and more likely after the Toba explosion. Both the Solo men and their slayers were unusually advanced: if their slayers may be presumed to be Wadjak men, they were already Mesolithic, and counted as a step in advance frim the rest of the world (Comparable to the Hoa Binh people in Vietnam) The reason the Solo people were thought to be very recent is because some of the weapons associated with them were considered very advanced: among the weapons were some bone harpoon heads. Now we can say definitely that these were early in Africa and that the Africans were most likely using them against the Solo people. The Solo skullcaps are about evenly divided between adult males and females, with one younger male, probably a teenager. They had all been cannibalized.


This grim picture including headhunting and cannibalism of the fallen foes seems to tell us directly how the Out of Africa tribe conquered Sundaland for their own in the aftermath of the Toba volcanic eruption. Since there is a pretty good chance the genetic line of the Solo peoples continued (in the mtDNA evidence), it seems that some of the females were captured for interbreeding with their (male) conquerors. This would be more of a political statement than because of any sexual attraction.

 

image

More modern head hunter continues the tradition started by the early Out of Africa warrior elite.

 

Source: http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/search/label/Ngandong

 

Quote    Reply   

#75 [url]

Jan 3 14 11:23 AM

Interesting as it is, the Russian guys are monitoring our topic. See the post 446:

http://forum.zoologist.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1302&p=18

 

Check that the poster Алекс believes that this new mandible is fake, which fed my suspicions more about this "fossil".

 

I am not saying that Алекс is right and Olof is wrong, but it is necessary to authenticate the fossil itself, after all Chinese fossil falsification is a reality and there are many of them in the market.

 

By the way, check the long post of Corbin and its document in this topic from them:

http://forum.zoologist.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1302&p=18

 

Check the link in post No. 444 for the paper: http://www.fayloobmennik.net/3460643

 

It is very interesting and the poster Corbin, together with Roman Uchitel has wrote a very compressive (and long) essay about the tiger evolution (in Russian, by the way).

 

It has nothing new on it, after all it mentions the same theories that I have previously posted here and in AVA, but the effort to compile all this with the copy-paste from Kitchener and other authors, it is great effort and is worth of reading.

 

I am not agree in them hypothesis that only existed one wave of invasion (from China to Java) and the modern tiger taxonomy is not deeply explained (they barely discuss it), but the description of the dentitions is something new to add in our descriptions and discussions.

 

By the way, the draws and the images are great.

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#76 [url]

Jan 3 14 7:59 PM

The new mandible is from Indonesia, not China.

BTW, the accidentally discovered fossils were likely real, but as for those in the market, many of them can be fake. 

Quote    Reply   

#77 [url]

Jan 3 14 8:44 PM

Yes my friend, I know that the mandible came from Java, according with the poster. However, he will need to clarified its origin in order to establish the authenticity of the fossil.

About the falsifications, they can came from China, but now they are all around the globe. It is really disturbing that some people can make money from this dirty job. smiley: mad

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#78 [url]

Jan 3 14 8:51 PM


If those fossils came from the Chinese sellers, many of these can be fake.

But those fossils which have been accidentally discovered or misidentified were likely real.

When they misidentified a tiger fossil, i think the ignorance played a bigger role than greed and fraudulence.

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 3 14 8:54 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#79 [url]

Jan 3 14 9:02 PM

When those frauds from China want to fabricate the fake fossils, i think the sabertooth cats will be more prone of their fraudulence.

Since the sabertooth fossils are much more popular than tiger fossils in China, very few people actually care about the tiger fossils, so very little money and fame for them to make the fake tiger fossils.

There are many tiger canine teeth in the Chinese market, but many experienced private teeth collectors can easily spot a fake tiger canine tooth.

Thus, i say those unaware tiger fossils were most likely real.

Quote    Reply   

#80 [url]

Jan 3 14 10:42 PM

Guate may be right about it being fake. However, even if it isn't fake, I have doubts this fossil even belongs to a tiger.

The fossil I think is simply too robust to be a cat. It's not a bear or dog obviously (Teeth all wrong).

When I first saw the skull by Olof, I thought it belonged to a member of the Creodonta family or robust hyena, LOL.smiley: laugh

b8916a754dc3628a6352eeb99b239cd7b1d988ea

Lion Skull

image

Obvious not but you see my point. The robusity is more similar to a hyena or creodont then a cat. The skull is simply too robust and the teeth are too weird.

If this skull is real, then this is a completely different species we don't know about. 
     

Last Edited By: Kingtheropod Jan 3 14 10:59 PM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help