Remove this ad

avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#121 [url]

Jan 15 14 10:15 PM

GuateGojira wrote:
GrizzlyClaws wrote:
Monstrous cat, and can Ngandong tiger topple Amur tiger's 9cm upper canine record?

It is hard to imagine a pantherine cat with 10cm of upper canine from the gumline.

I think that the largest Ngandong tiger probably had canines of up to 10 cm at the gum line. Check that if we fit a canine of this size in the head of the tiger in my comparison, it fits very well, but I am only speculating.

 

Besides, taking in count the head length of the great tiger “Amur” (Duisburg Zoo) at 500 mm, the skull probably measured c.450 mm, which his about the size of the skull corresponding to the large femur of P. t. soloensis.

 

So yes, I believe that an upper canine of 9 cm (probably up to 10 cm to the gum line) is plausible for the Ngandong tiger. Sadly the upper canines of the only complete skull of P. t. soloensis are broken (lower canines completely missing). Even then, they seem to be very long in comparison with the overall skull.

 


Actually tiger's skull/canine ratio is also highly correlated just like the femur ratio.

According to peter, the average male Amur tiger has 7cm canine from the gum line, so their average skull is about 35cm. The Amur tiger with 38.3cm skull has 7.45cm canine from the gum line.
  

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#122 [url]

Jan 15 14 10:17 PM

GuateGojira wrote:

WOW!!! This is a tiger of prehistoric size, no doubt of it. smiley: eek

 

Now I will like to see him in full view. I will search in the web and we will see. For the moment, here is one picture of Baikal climbing a tree.

 

image

 


If this Baikal is a wild specimen, then he would probably beat the largest Cromerian "lion" in a fight.
  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#124 [url]

Jan 15 14 10:36 PM

tigerluver wrote:
Had Baikal been wild, he may have been even heavier, as he would probably have more muscle which is not needed in captivity.


Agreed, he has the huge bone structure, yet not very stocky built compared many wild tigers.
  

In the wild with rich prey source, he would probably easily break the 400kg mark.

Quote    Reply   

#127 [url]

Jan 15 14 11:46 PM

tigerluver wrote:
KingT, by chance could you get Baikal height, this could help us deduce his femur length.

Also, thoughts on my finding on the Hertler and Volmer methods?


Excellent find. I have also “cracked” the system some months ago, but I let it go because I focused on other formulas.

 

Volmer (2005) use a female Sumatran tiger (Coll. No. 92259) as the base, however if you see the Appendix 7, the order of the table is incorrect (compare with that of the leopard). So I correct it and also found that she takes three measurements of each bone and latter she averages them, and the final result was used to obtain the weights.

 

It is interesting to see that the figure of 252.66 kg for the skull is incorrect, because she used the Basal length (318 mm), while Van Valkenburgh formula (1990) uses the Condylobasal length (c.340 mm). So, the correct figure will be 311.1 kg (288.0 kg with the correction).

 

Besides, if you read Hertler & Volmer (2007), they use the figures of the 100% column, but other figures are completely different. From my point of view, I think that none of the weights from the documents should be used. Why? Well, in the case of Volmer (2005), at least we know the method and I was able to reproduce all the results, but in the case of Hertler & Volmer (2007), they should copy them previous results but at the end, they presented different values in some cases.

 

I also applied this method to the specimens of Dr Christiansen and I found that the error between the calculated values and the real ones is very high, in the specimen CN5697, the weight increased by 61.4 kg! (282.4 against 221 kg).

 

I do have other three complete specimens (one Amur male, one female-no subsp. and one unsexed specimen-no subsp.) that we can use to corroborate or discard this method, but like I said before, it will be futile and pointless as the method of Volmer (2005) give unreliable results, from my point of view.

 



Quote    Reply   

#128 [url]

Jan 16 14 12:06 AM

Baikal was transferred to the Assiniboine Park Zoo in 2009, so I searched images from that place and I found this:

image

 

Did you think that this is Baikal? The page were I found it don’t say it, but is the only large tiger in the pictures. If it is, it looks much leaner than in previous pictures, maybe because at 2013 (the year of the picture), it is much older (16 years old) and old tigers loose condition.

 

Edit: Other picture, from December of 2013.

image

 

Last Edited By: GuateGojira Jan 16 14 12:09 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#129 [url]

Jan 16 14 12:37 AM

Slightly different methods used for the 2005 and 2007 documents. From personal communication, I was told that the Van Valkenberg formulas were abandoned and instead log-scaled masses were applied, therefore the results of the two documents were different. Also, in estimating the fossil masses, averages were not used in the case of long bones, just the dimension available alongside the correction factor. This is because Von Koenigswald only gave one measurement which could be applied to their equations (femur length, humerus length).  For example, the 480 mm was applied to the regression equation, and a number was produced. Then it was weighted by the difference of the femur length weight estimate and average weight estimate of the Sumatran tiger specimen. Lastly, CN5697 is not the best specimen to apply equations to, something was not normal about the specimen, as out of the 5 specimens Christiansen published, it is an outlier on the growth charts, while the others fit almost perfectly. 


Regardless, the estimates for the specimen they have seem too high. For a femur length of 296 mm, the estimate based only on femur length was 101 kg, though based on the regression I came up with based on Christiansen and Harris data, that specimen would weigh around 68 kg. This number makes much more sense seeing that the 115 kg specimen had a femur length of 341.5 mm. The correction factor used for the large femur was 1.10 based on the Sumatran specimen, meaning the estimate Hertler and Volmer of the femur before correction would be 515 kg, clearly way too high.  

Also, I am noticing my posts are a bit lengthy. Should I start double spacing these long posts of mine to make it easier on the eyes?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Tripoli raider

Posts: 2 Member Since:relative

#130 [url]

Jan 16 14 12:41 AM

baikal

Hello everyone

Baikal weighs 850 lbs and is 1.25meters tall. But you'll have to double check those figures.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#131 [url]

Jan 16 14 12:48 AM

Thanks for the numbers Tripoli. Baikal really seems to fit the estimated dimensions of the large Ngandong tiger. 240 cm body length and 125 cm height is pretty much identical to the theoretical dimensions of the 480 mm femur. Add to that, we have a live mass of 386 kg of a captive specimen. The estimate of 409 kg from my regression equation is almost 6% heavier than Baikal, and this weight is very plausible from the Ngandong tiger specimen for the reason GrizzlyClaws and I have cited.

Quote    Reply   

#132 [url]

Jan 16 14 12:57 AM

Tripoli raider wrote:
Hello everyone

Baikal weighs 850 lbs and is 1.25meters tall. But you'll have to double check those figures.

Hello Tripoli, thanks for the data.

 

Just one question, were do you get this data (shoulder height)? Can we double check the figure with your source? It seems reliable, but I will like to know if it corresponds to a standing height.

 

Greetings.

 


Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#133 [url]

Jan 16 14 1:07 AM

Baikal weighed about 850 pounds when he was 12 years old, which was already passed his prime.

I suspect he might have topped 900 pounds during his prime (6-9 years old).

Last Edited By: GrizzlyClaws Jan 16 14 1:25 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#134 [url]

Jan 16 14 1:18 AM

His head size is also identical to the large Panthera spelaea specimen (possibly fossilis) from western Russia.

This specimen has a 46cm skull and weighs about 800 pounds.

image

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#136 [url]

Jan 16 14 1:58 AM

tigerluver wrote:
Good point on Baikal's size GrizzyClaws.

Though, cave lions/modern lions and tigers should not be compared too much, the proportions are significantly different.

That's why Baikal is slightly larger than this guy despite the skull/head size is similar, this is the body proportion difference between tiger and lion/lion-clade members.
  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GrizzlyClaws

Posts: 120 Member Since:relative

#137 [url]

Jan 16 14 2:04 AM

My opinion about Baikal:

Weight: 850 pounds at the age of 12, possible topped 900 pounds during his prime.
Skull: Possibly about 45-46cm
Canine: Possibly about 9-10cm from the gum line
shoulder height: 125cm
body length: 240cm

Baikal's body proportion looks like a normal male Amur tiger, except he is like to up scale by 25% across all dimensions.

Here is a normal male Amur tiger:

Weight: 450-500 pounds
Skull: 36-37cm
Canine: 7-7.5cm
shoulder height: 100cm
body length: 190-200cm

Quote    Reply   

#138 [url]

Jan 16 14 2:25 AM

So, in conclusion, if we want to see the size of the largest Ngandong tiger, we most see the Amur tiger Baikal. They are about of the same size and weight, so is a perfect comparison, with the only difference than Baikal have a fluffy coat and the Ngandong tiger don't. Anything else is practically the same.

I am preparing a comparison image between the largest Amur tiger recorded in the wild (Maurice) and Baikal. Wait a few minutes please.



Quote    Reply   

#139 [url]

Jan 16 14 2:38 AM

GrizzlyClaws wrote:
My opinion about Baikal:

Weight: 850 pounds at the age of 12, possible topped 900 pounds during his prime.
Skull: Possibly about 45-46cm
Canine: Possibly about 9-10cm from the gum line
shoulder height: 125cm
body length: 240cm

Baikal's body proportion looks like a normal male Amur tiger, except he is like to up scale by 25% across all dimensions.

Here is a normal male Amur tiger:

Weight: 450-500 pounds
Skull: 36-37cm
Canine: 7-7.5cm
shoulder height: 100cm
body length: 190-200cm

I agree. Also, thanks for pointing out Baikal. I will use him in the discussion of my paper to show the validity of the regression estimates, as literally, he seems to be a clone of the Ngandong specimen.

Baikal brings to the table some interesting genetics talk. Tigers have 38 chromosomes, there are an excess of billions of possibilities for genetic recombination. Modern tigers have significantly downsized, but it would make sense that the genetic sequences that made prehistoric tigers so large could be potentially still in the genome, albeit rarely. Of the modern pantherines, only tigers have been able to reach the largest sizes of prehistoric pantherines, and this could be due to the remnants of Pleistocene tiger DNA remaining in the modern tiger genome. The tiger seems to be the one of the more primitive species of the pantherine family. 

Quote    Reply   

#140 [url]

Jan 16 14 3:42 AM

Here is the comparison image between the tiger Baikal and the largest measurements recorded by the Amur tiger (scientific sources only):

image

 

I made a visual comparison with the Baikal picture with the photograph, and it seems to me that the height of 125 cm seems a bit excessive, maybe up to 120 cm will by more accurate, but judge by yourself.

 

My comparison presents Baikal with a shoulder height of 125 cm and a head-body of 240 cm. The wild Amur tiger had a shoulder height of 106 cm and a head-body of 208 cm.

 

This image also show how important is to know the head-body length, because if only the total length was known, a comparison like this would be impossible. From my point of view, total length measurements are useless to get the real size of a great cat.

 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help