Preliminary results

Excellent explanation Tigerluver, thank you
very much. Now I understand better the use of those formulas.

So, as far I understand, these two formulas (a.Legendre&Roth
– b.Sorkin-Christiansen&Harris (2009)) have about the same statement and
based in full actual specimens (at least in the final case, L&R use real
bones but weights from literature).

This will means that the results of Van
Valkenburgh (1990) should be discarded? I think not, but they serve to the only
purposes to balance the results (in the case of dentition, for skull her
formula overestimate results) and present a more “average” figure overall.

By the way, I manage to calculate the weight of
all the fossils available from the Ngandong tiger and the Wanhsien tiger, using
the following formulas:

*1.** Legendre & Roth,
1988 (Lower molar 1 area in mm*^{2}).

*2.** Van Valkenburgh,1990
(Lower molar antero-posterior length in mm).*

*3.** Sorkin, 2008 (largest
tiger specimens).*

*4.** Christiansen &
Harris, 2009 (all Panthera members).*

The only difference between Sorkin and
Christiansen is that Sorkin used the largest specimens recorded (maximum length
and weight, even if they are not related) while Christiansen extrapolate his
own database and create an average of the figures. I have found that C&H
specimens present the largest bones but not the largest weights, so they
results presents slightly lower figures while Sorkin balance the results
presenting a relative higher figure. Here are my results in simple ranges.

**Body mass of the giant
Pleistocene tigers:**

* Ngandong tiger (*Panthera tigris
soloensis*): *142.6 – 368.2 kg.*

* Wanhsien tiger (*Panthera tigris
acutidens*): *132.3 – 267.3 kg.*

Check that this results mix males (higher
values) and females (lower values), just like most of the weight estimations in
the documents and the web.

On the Ngandong tiger, all the specimens
available are of the same size than modern Amur-Bengal tigers, only the largest
humerus and the giant femur present body masses over the 261 kg mark for the
heaviest tiger scientifically recorded (Smith *et al.*, 1983). The largest weight obtained was of **372 kg** (for the
femur) using the formula of C&H-2009 (all *Panthera* members, only males used).

For the Wanhsien tiger, none of the long bones
or the complete skull represent a large specimen, in fact, they range of
weights is between 132-176 kg (I will discuss this last weight latter), which
mach perfectly with the modern South China tiger (*Panthera tigris amoyensis*). The figures from dentition present the widest
range with a maximum figure of **293.6 kg** for the largest specimen (A.M.N.H.
18738.4 – Lm1 of 31.2 x 15.4 mm), using the formula of Sorkin (2008); when
balanced with L&R and Van V., the result change to 267.3 kg. It seems that
using only the available fossils in literature, the Wanhsien tiger *was no larger than the modern Amur-Bengal tiger*,
although the largest dentition *suggests*
specimens slightly larger than the record skull of 406 mm for the Amur males, implying a specimen of probably up to** 300 kg
**more or less, just like the record modern tigers that reach the **320 kg**.

Now, if the giant skull and the huge mandible
from the north of China were available, they could change these results, but
they need to be measured and reported, just like the giant new specimens from
the Cromerian “lion” in the document of 2013.

We all ready know the results from Anyonge
(1993), so we only need to add the results from Christiansen & Harris
(2005) to the overall data. I decided to exclude the formulas of Christiansen
(1999-about the Pleistocene bear weights) because he explained that those
formulas give the less reliable results for cats.

Well, the ball in on your field now. I will put
the images of these results in moment.

Greetings to all.