Remove this ad

avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#81 [url]

Jan 3 14 10:58 PM

Kingtheropod wrote:
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

image

Obvious not but you see my point. 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. 
     


There is no prehistoric giant hyena in Java, so it must be a Creodonta, since their skull is much more robust than Carnivora's skull.

And it does look much more fossilized than any other prehistoric tiger fossils i've seen, it is definitely much earlier than the Pleistocene animals.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#82 [url]

Jan 3 14 11:12 PM

Kingtheropod wrote:
GrizzlyClaws wrote:
Kingtheropod wrote:
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

image

Obvious not but you see my point. 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. 
     


There is no prehistoric giant hyena in Java, so it must be a Creodonta, since their skull is much more robust than Carnivora's skull.

And it does look much more fossilized than any other prehistoric tiger fossils i've seen, it is definitely much earlier than the Pleistocene animals.


Yes, you are correct.

This skull looks like it could pass for 20 million years old.

Olof, I recommend if you really want to find out about your skull you have, you should take it to a local Muesum to identify it. If it is fake they can tell you, but if it is real then that could equal big money. smiley: happy
  

I believe the skull is real, but it just doesn't belong to a tiger or any other Carnivora species.

Olof should sell this mandible to the scientific community, since it will contribute a lot to the discovery of a new species.


  

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 3 14 11:15 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   

#83 [url]

Jan 7 14 12:32 AM

Hello guys, I found the document of Legendre & Roth and I use it with the lower M1 of the Ngandong tiger specimens. Although the results are not impressive, they are interesting. I will put them in my next post TODAY.

I am currently working with those of the Wanhsien tiger, the fossils are from Colbert & Hooijer.


Quote    Reply   

#84 [url]

Jan 7 14 2:05 AM

Weight of the Ngandong tiger by Legendre & Roth (1988)

Here is the image of the formulas of the document:

image

 

They propose the use of the two formulas but as far I understand, they used or the lowest figure or the average of the two results. I prefer the average approach, because it gives a much balanced estimation.

 

Here is the link to download the full document.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233346740_Correlation_of_carnassial_tooth_size_and_body_weight_in_recent_carnivores_%28mammalia%29

 

The fossils used are the three lower molars 1 (Lm1) from the deposits of Ngandong, Java:

1. Molar 1: 30 mm length and 16 mm wide = 480 mm2

2. Molar 2: 26 mm length and 14 mm wide = 364 mm2

3. Molar 3: 25 mm length and 13.5 mm wide = 337.5 mm2

 

Remember that this formulas use the molar area (in mm2), not only the length like Van Valkenburgh (1990). So we most use only the final data on mm2. Besides, the results are given in grams, so the results most by divided by 1,000 to obtain kilograms.

 

Other thing, check that these three teeth are the only lower m1 from Ngandong; there is another of 24 mm but this is from Trinil, so although is included in Hertler & Volmer (2008), it is excluded in the original thesis of Volmer (2005) and its original location (Trinil) is corroborated by Brongersman (1935).

 

So, here are the results using the formula of Legendre & Roth (1988):

 

a. Lm1 1:

            First formula: 254.9 kg

            Second formula: 250.0 kg

            Average: 252.5 kg.

 

b. Lm1 2:

First formula: 166.3 kg

            Second formula: 163.5 kg

            Average: 165 kg.

 

c. Lm1 3:

First formula: 147.9 kg

            Second formula: 145.6 kg

            Average: 146.8 kg.

 

These are the results. Independently if we use the average figures of the lowest figures, is obvious that these three specimens represent animals of the same size than modern Amur-Bengal tigers. However, we must not be surprised, after all, the largest lower M1 from modern tigers are of 29.5 mm and 30 mm (greatest length) from Amur and Bengal tigers respectively. So, the dentitions of Ngandong tigers, like all the other bones (except from the largest humerus and the giant femur) represent animals of the same size than modern Amur-Bengal tigers.

 

Even then, I noted that this formula gives slightly higher values than that of Van Valkenburgh (1990).

 

For comparison, here are the results using the data from Van Valkenburgh (1990):

* Lm1 1: 226.6 kg

* Lm1 2: 146.4 kg

* Lm1 3: 129.9 kg

 

Now those using the formula and method of Sorkin (2008):

* Lm1 1: 261 kg

* Lm1 2: 169.9 kg

* Lm1 3: 151 kg

 

The comparative (maximum) values used were a Lm1 length of 30 mm (Pocock, 1939) and a maximum weight of 261 kg (Smith et al., 1983); both values came from Bengal tigers. It is interesting that the Amur tiger values are lower, with a Lm1 of 29.5 mm (Karimi-Mazlaghani; 2005) and a weight of 254 kg (Slaght et al., 2005).

 

The results of Sorkin (2008) resemble more those from Legendre & Roth (1988) than those from Van Valkenburgh (1990). From my point of view, this new results are more reliable, after all, if the largest modern tigers reach over 250 kg, how is going to be that a large prehistoric specimen is going to weight only 227 kg?

 

In my next post, the weight of Wanhsien tigers (Panthera tigris acutidens), using these formulas.

 

Greetings.

 

Quote    Reply   

#87 [url]

Jan 8 14 11:01 PM

Sorkin's "methods" were actually just application of the cube law, meaning that he assumed the idea that mass increase occurs isometrically (cubically) in regard to linear dimensions was valid, though he did not prove it with data. Legendre & Roth (1988) equation was produced by actual data. Their equlations yielding similar results to the isometric method indicates that indeed mass growth is isometric (cubic) in regard linear dimensions, partially confirming Sorkin's assumptions in regard to the relationship between dentition dimensions and mass. Hope this helps.


Later, I will explain the meaning of the equations that we have used here.

Regards.

Quote    Reply   

#88 [url]

Jan 9 14 12:39 AM

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 mm2).

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. smiley: smile

 

Last Edited By: GuateGojira Jan 9 14 1:27 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#89 [url]

Jan 9 14 1:37 AM

Exceptions to Isometry

Nice analysis Guate. I wouldn't discard any formula, especially one that used data to be produced. We'd have to see the data used to explain why the formula had whatever scale factor.


I'd like to point out why the isometric approach is often times invalid. Data shows that not everything is isometric. Here is an example, based on tiger femur measurements and respective body masses:

We will estimate the mass of CN5698 (P. tigris, FL = 411 mm, actual mass = 230 kg) with the isometric method using 3 other specimens.
 
Estimations using isometry:
1. Specimen used for comparison measurements are FL = 408.5 mm and M = 225 kg. Applying isometry, the estimated mass is 229 kg.
2. Specimen used for comparison measurements are FL = 360.5 mm and M = 145 kg. Applying isometry, the estimated mass is 215 kg.
3. Specimen used for comparison measurements are FL = 341.5 mm and M = 115 kg. Applying isometry, the estimated mass is 200 kg.

I won't bother giving the total average, as that is not helpful to the point being explained. Note, the smaller the individual used for comparison, the smaller the estimated mass. This means that body mass grows at a greater rate than cubically in respect to femur length.

Now let's estimate the mass of small specimen with isometry, the specimen is labeled as CN5669 (P. tigris, FL = 341.5 mm, M = 115 kg).
1. Specimen used for comparison measurements are FL = 408.5 mm and M = 225 kg. Applying isometry, the estimated mass is 131 kg.
2. Specimen used for comparison measurements are FL = 360.5 mm and M = 145 kg. Applying isometry, the estimated mass is 123 kg.
3. Specimen used for comparison measurements are FL = 411 mm and M = 230 kg. Applying isometry, the estimated mass is 132 kg.

Note that now the larger specimens are giving an overestimation of mass when compared with the small specimen. Had body mass scaled to femur length cubically, this would not have been the case. Though, again, as body mass grows a greater rate than cubically in respect to femur length, larger specimens give overestimations when compared with smaller specimens. 

This is where regression comes into play. The scale factor (which is the slope of line of best fit if scaled logistically) represents whether or not mass grows isometrically (cubically). Logistically scaling and graphing the data produces the scale factor of 3.6865. Using the cube law, substitute this scale factor for 3, and note how the estimates become much more accurate. What I have just explained is part of the basis for the use of linear regression rather than isometry in recent documents. It is interesting to note that within species(not genus or family, thus why Christiansen and Harris (2005) formula had scale factors of less than 3) from bears to tigers, mass to femur length seems to grow at a greater rate than cubically. 

Finally, the full equation derived from the 4 specimens cited in this posted is as follows: log(body mass) = 3.6865*log(femur length) - 7.273.

Pertaining to our topic, this produces a mass of 409 kg for our largest specimen of P. t. soloensis

Also, a little fun fact, Panthera tigris soloensis roughly translates into "solo tiger," similar to how Homo erectus soloensis mean solo man.

Last Edited By: tigerluver Jan 9 14 5:21 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#90 [url]

Jan 9 14 3:10 AM

Fascinating analysis Tigerluver. It is very interesting how Isometry and Regression come to play a great factor in the accuracy of the data. That’s why my new approach is to use all the available formulas and make a rough average of all of them to estimate a “reliable” calculated weight.

 

Thankfully, I have all the data and the complete documents of all these formulas. If you need it to make a better analysis of the data used by the authors, I can send it to you.

 

Your result of 409 kg makes much sense, but this figure will represent the upper maximum weight possible for that particular specimen. Besides, this approach of Christiansen (1999) is interesting:

As in extant mammals, the rare giant specimens may have considerably extended the mass range upwards. Such “word record” specimens are always very rare, are thus unlikely to appear in the fossil record, even in the case of species known from numerous individuals.

 

With this premise, we can affirm that although the largest Ngandong tiger at this day (femur of 480 mm) weighed about 370-400 kg (from ONLY 8 specimens), but it is more than sure that heavier specimens existed and with such a rich prey base as in the upper Pleistocene Java, the existence of large tigers like Bamera, B2 or Waghdo among the Ngandong tigers (and with its scale), was a 100% real fact.

 

About the name, yes, the Solo tiger was baptized in this manner because the Ngandong town (near the excavation site) was established in the shore of the Solo river, in Java.

 

By the way, did you read the “dark secret” of Ngandong? It is interesting to see that there is the possibility that this place was a sacrificial place, and antagonistic locality between two hominid species or something like that, and maybe the tigers arrived to eat the dead ones!

 

Other interesting thing is that in the time of this large tigers, existed the large hominid know as Meganthropus palaeojavanicus. Some experts believe that this “giant” was just a primitive but large form of Homo erectus that probably measured over 2 m tall, but whatever it was, this great ape was comparable in size with the modern gorilla (Day, 1980).

 

The fauna of Pleistocene Java is FASCINATING, full of giants and incredible animals that sadly, no longer live with us.

 

Last Edited By: GuateGojira Jan 9 14 3:24 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#91 [url]

Jan 9 14 4:29 AM

Body mass of the Ngandong tiger

Here are the images with all the calculations for the seven fossils of the Ngandong tiger (P. t. soloensis) available, with the four methods.

 

image

image

 

Assuming a similar sexual dimorphism like the modern tigers:

* Male Ngandong tigers range between 222 – 368 kg.

* Female Ngandong tigresses range between 143 – 160 kg.

 

Enjoy the data! smiley: smile

 


Edit note: Judging by the size of the long bones, I inferred that all the specimens were “males” Under this premise, I use only male specimens for the analysis. Those of the dentition are formulas already established, so no sexual inference was made.

 

Now, in the case of the Wanhsien tiger (next post), the small size of the specimens make impossible to judge the sex of some of them, so in that case, I used males and females for the long bones and the skull.

 

Check my next post for the Pleistocene tiger of China. smiley: wink

 

Last Edited By: GuateGojira Jan 9 14 4:39 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#92 [url]

Jan 9 14 5:01 AM

Just a tip, for the skull, there should be separation of male and female specimens used for comparison. For long bones, there is no distinct difference between male and female proportions in terms of body mass, though one might encounter more inaccuracy due to perfect isometry not being valid.

Quote    Reply   

#94 [url]

Jan 9 14 5:38 AM

Nice charts Guate.

Though I would like to say the estimation I gave is not the upper end for the specimen. The upper end would be from Hertler and Volmer, who used the Anyonge formula but then corrected it with logarithmically scaled body masses. 370 kg is the lower end based on isometry applied across specimens whose dimension are open to public, 410 kg the mid and probable based on data of only tigers which are open to public, and 470 kg would be the high end estimate based on unknown data. Had Anyonge published his database much more could have been cleared up.

Also, very nice illustration of the tiger, great to enhance the topic!

Quote    Reply   

#95 [url]

Jan 9 14 7:29 AM

tigerluver wrote:
Just a tip, for the skull, there should be separation of male and female specimens used for comparison. For long bones, there is no distinct difference between male and female proportions in terms of body mass, though one might encounter more inaccuracy due to perfect isometry not being valid.

Thank you for the advise. I am going to change that right now with the Wanhsien tiger.

Here is an interesting thing. We have the complete skull of the Wanhsien tiger presented by Matthew & Granger (1923), Hooijer (1947) and Colbert & Hooijer (1953). Sadly, none of these three documents present the size of the skull. The only measurement that we have is that of the mandible (c.215 mm) in Hooijer (1947).

Well, taking in count this, I used the picture of Matthew & Granger (1923), which from my point of view, is the best of the three, check it:
image

Using this image, I estimated a Greatest skull length of c.330 mm. However, I try another approach, extrapolating modern tigers to achieve a reliable estimation. I used several skulls from Amur, Bengal and Indochinese tigers, separating males from females.

From this, I can confirm the statement of Mazák (2010) that male and female tigers don't have the same morphology in they skulls. Simple as it is, the estimated GSL calculated from females was larger than the one calculated from males. So, I made an average between the two values as we don't know the sex of the skull from Wanhsien (it is too deformed and needs a deeper study).

The estimated skull size was:

            Male               Female          Average

GSL    322.7              329.3              326.0             

CBL    287.2              290.5              289.0

ML      215.0              215.0              215.0

* Values in mm.

 

Naturally, I used the CBL of c.289 mm for the estimation of weight, but taking another view of my calculations, I found that I used only male specimens. I most correct his now.

 

For the long bones, it is interesting that when I used females in the calculations of Christiansen & Harris (2009), I found that the average weight is reduced by 1 kg in all the cases. The largest reduction of the weight is caused by the introduction of the female snow leopards (Panthera (Uncia) uncial) on the calculations.

 



Quote    Reply   

#96 [url]

Jan 9 14 7:39 AM

GrizzlyClaws wrote:
I believe the large skull and mandible from China could be some extremely rare record specimens appeared in the fossils.

BTW, here is an illusion of a large male Ngandong tiger preying on a large male Meganthropus.

image

Credit to HodariNundu

http://hodarinundu.deviantart.com/art/Clash-of-the-Giants-325727397

Fascinating draw. I like this type of illustrations (hand-made), that’s why I also like to draw my own illustrations and not just create computer-generated images. Is like some type of art gets lost in the process.

 

By the way, did you know that the Homo erectus soloensis have one of the largest cephalizations on record? Is comparable with those of the Neanderthal!

 

Other thing, I found that it is a myth that Neanderthals had larger brains than Homo sapiens. In fact, the cephalization size is larger in Neanderthal ONLY on “average”, but NOT in extremes. The largest value corresponds only for the modern human.

 

In this case, the statements of the Hard-core-lion-fans than the largest brain of the tiger is irrelevant, based on the Neanderthal are FALSE. Modern humans have larger cephalization in relation with ALL the other hominids, just like the tiger in relation with all the other cats. smiley: nerd

 


Last Edited By: GuateGojira Jan 9 14 8:00 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#97 [url]

Jan 9 14 8:12 AM

On the hominids in the Pleistocene of Java

I found this article in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus

 

Apart from the huge size estimation (around 8 feet (2.44 m) tall and approximately 400 to 600 lbs (181 – 272 kg)), it say that the location of the fossils was from Sangiran, which is much earlier than the Ngandong site, more or less in the time when the Wanhsien tigers began they expansion trough mainland and when the primitive Javanese tiger (Panthera tigris oxygnata) lived in the area.

 

So no, the Ngandong tiger and the Meganthropus (Homo erectus palaeojavanicus (?)) don’t existed in the same time. smiley: frown

 

The hominid that lived in the time of the Ngandog tiger was Homo erectus soloensis. Although there is no estimation of size, based in the skulls I think that they were of the same size than modern humans. Here is the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus_soloensis

 

Also, check this document:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rlh2/PartII.pdf

 

In the Appendix 1 is a large sample of endocranial volumes from hominids. Here are the values from the Neanderthal (Homo (sapiens) neanderthalen) and the modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens):

 

Neanderthal:

Mean: 1,487.5 ml.

Max.: 1,740.0

Min.: 1,172.0

n: 29

 

Sapiens:

Mean: 1,330.0 ml.

Max.: 1,775.0

Min.: 1,090.0

n: 57

 

The maximum values correspond for modern humans, but we must take in count that there was more size variation between humans than between Neanderthals. In this case, the average is forced by those small humans. This is the same case with tigers and lions, however even in that case, tigers still have larger cephalizations (Bali tiger brains > South African lion brains). This is deeper than we can previously think.



Finally, check this article about the Meganthropus:

http://rephaim23.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/meganthropus-x-resurrecting-the-mega-man-of-java/

 

This last image is awesome:

image

Stretching 8 feet tall, Meganthropus stands head and shoulders over Modern Man, and the 3 1/2 foot so-called “Hobbit” of Flores.

 

Greetings to all. smiley: happy

 

Last Edited By: GuateGojira Jan 9 14 8:17 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#98 [url]

Jan 9 14 8:14 AM

Such illustration could definitely happen in the real life of the prehistoric era.

The tiger was trying to apply a skull bite to the giant cave man with its 7 inches fangs, while the giant cave man was trying to stab the 900 pounds cat with its sharpened stone.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#99 [url]

Jan 9 14 8:19 AM

GuateGojira wrote:

I found this article in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus

 

Apart from the huge size estimation (around 8 feet (2.44 m) tall and approximately 400 to 600 lbs (181 – 272 kg)), it say that the location of the fossils was from Sangiran, which is much earlier than the Ngandong site, more or less in the time when the Wanhsien tigers began they expansion trough mainland and when the primitive Javanese tiger (Panthera tigris oxygnata) lived in the area.

 

So no, the Ngandong tiger and the Meganthropus (Homo erectus palaeojavanicus (?)) don’t existed in the same time. smiley: frown

 

The hominid that lived in the time of the Ngandog tiger was Homo erectus soloensis. Although there is no estimation of size, based in the skulls I think that they were of the same size than modern humans. Here is the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus_soloensis

 

Also, check this document:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rlh2/PartII.pdf

 

In the Appendix 1 is a large sample of endocranial volumes from hominids. Here are the values from the Neanderthal (Homo (sapiens) neanderthalen) and the modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens):

 

Neanderthal:

Mean: 1,487.5 ml.

Max.: 1,740.0

Min.: 1,172.0

n: 29

 

Sapiens:

Mean: 1,330.0 ml.

Max.: 1,775.0

Min.: 1,090.0

n: 57

 

The maximum values correspond for modern humans, but we must take in count that there was more size variation between humans than between Neanderthals. In this case, the average is forced by those small humans. This is the same case with tigers and lions, however even in that case, tigers still have larger cephalizations (Bali tiger brains > South African lion brains). This is deeper than we can previously think.



Finally, check this article about the Meganthropus:

http://rephaim23.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/meganthropus-x-resurrecting-the-mega-man-of-java/

 

This last image is awesome:

image

Stretching 8 feet tall, Meganthropus stands head and shoulders over Modern Man, and the 3 1/2 foot so-called “Hobbit” of Flores.

 

Greetings to all. smiley: happy

 


Then too bad, this can only exist in the author's imagination.

The homonids that Ngandong tiger once faced were solo men and other early homo sapiens.
  

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 9 14 8:22 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   

#100 [url]

Jan 9 14 8:30 AM

The creepy thing is that it seems that those earlier Homo sapiens killed (ate??) the last Homo erectus soloensis in Ngandong, and latter, it seems that tigers eat the bodies and a few of them died in the area (also hunted by humans??). smiley: sick

 

Again, read this article that I showed in the post No. 64.

http://animalbattle.yuku.com/topic/21/body-size-weight-Ngandong-tiger-Panthera-tigris-soloens?page=8#.Us4zSPu0h8k

 

In a next occasion we can go deeper in other large mammals of the area. For the moment, I will post the size estimations of the Wanhsien tiger.

 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help