Search this Topic:
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 7:09 PM
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 7:24 PM
Tue, Jan 10, 2012 12:01 AM
Tue, Jan 10, 2012 12:03 AM
Well said perrault!
Also, according to what I've researched, Java was not an island in the Pleistocene. It was still connected to the mainland of Asia. Here is a map of Southeast Asia in the Pleistocene:
Fri, Jan 13, 2012 3:57 AM
This map is the ancient Sonda shelf, which was a huge landscape full of large animals large deers, rhinos, buffaloes, etc., which are still present in tiger territory, especially in India were larger tigers live.
By the way, taking a review on the estimated weight for Panthera tigris soloensis in Hertler & Volmer (2008) and Volmer (2005), I have found that although some estimations were based in limb bones using the formula of Anyonge (1993), the others were estimated using dental and skull material using formulas of Van Valkenburg (1990). Both documents use different figures, so I will post here those from Volmer (2005) as they are the only that estate which bone was used. Here are the results.
Fossil Weight (kg) Formula
MfdexC,(P3),(P4),M1 129.93 Van Valkenburg (1990)
Ukdex+sinC,P3,P4,M1(2X) 146.44 Van Valkenburg (1990)
Mf sin,(C),P3,P4,M1 226.58 Van Valkenburg (1990)
Calvarium (skull) 252.66 Van Valkenburg (1990)
Femur 478.6 Anyonge (1993)
Humerus 353.42 Anyonge (1993)
Humerus 278.31 Anyonge (1993)
The problem with this estimations is that the formulas of Van Valkenburg (1990), that use dental and cranial elements, tend to underestimate the weight of carnivores. On the other side, the formulas of Anyonge (1993) overestimate the weight. Both of this formulas use a base of weights from “literature” and not from real specimens, like Christiansen & Harris (2005).
This is from Hertler & Volmer (2008): “We estimated body mass six times on single complete skeletons of recent tiger, leopard, striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), and dhole, using a different skeletal measurement for each estimate (Van Valkenburgh, 1990; Anyonge, 1993). The measurements were length of the lower carnassial (M1L), total skull length (SKL), femoral length (FL), femoral circumference (FC), humerus length (HL) and humerus circumference (HC). The deviation of each element specific estimate from the average of all six estimates was determined and used to construct a set of six element specific correction factors for each species.”
I can speculate that the skull (calvarium) used here is the skull described by Koenigwald (1933) and in that case, the body mass based in the formula of Van Valkenburg (1990) would be of 252.66 kg. However, is important to take in count that this formula, together with those that use dental material, underestimate the real weight, so my estimation of 290-300 kg is still plausible.
Fri, Jan 13, 2012 7:38 PM
Sat, Jan 14, 2012 3:19 PM
tigerluver wrote:In Hooijer's document, there was a tiger with a humerus length of 381 mm. How large do you that individual could have been?
in the first part of this topic, is an estimation of size based in this bone. Check
So, with a humerus
of 381 mm, this tiger was very large, larger than any tiger-lion humerus that I
have saw (372.5 for an Amur tiger and 366 for an African lion (Christiansen
& Harris, 2005)). However, we need more data, specially on the diameter of
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 7:30 PM
According to this, the weights were not only calculated by formulas by Anyonge. Or am I inferring this wrong?
Also, in Hertler 2005, what does the 100% section on the chart mean?
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 7:44 PM
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 7:48 PM
1. Body size of the tiger, based in Greatest Skull Length:
My first method to estimate the body
length of a tiger is using the greatest skull length, which is by far, the most
used skull measurement in both hunting and scientific records. The body measurement
that I search is the length, in straight line, from the premaxilia of the upper
mandible to the first caudal vertebrae. This distance resembles the head-body
length established in Nowell & Jackson (1996), which is from the nose to
the beginning of the tail.
I compare 8 complete tiger skeletons
with a scale bar based in the full length of the skull. Here are the images:
The large skeletons (No. 1 to 4)
have a body-skull relation of 5, in other words, we need five skulls to get the
head-body length in the skeleton. However, the more slender skeletons (No. 5 to
8), including a female in the No. 6, give a relation of up to 5.5. I estimate
that the skull lengths of females (which are more small and slender than males)
are smaller in relation to the body than males.
Based on this, using the relation of
5 and the skull length of 390 cm for the P.
t. soloensis specimen, I can calculate a head-body length of 195 cm in the
Now based in the average difference
of 37.1 cm (n=3) between the HB-skeleton and HB-in-flesh, in the specimens of
Christianse & Adolfssen (2007), the head-body length of this specimen, in
the flesh, is of c.232 cm. taken in straight line.
Here is the data of the difference:
This size seem to be reliable for a
large specimen, taking in count that the largest modern tigers have reached up
to 220 cm measured between pegs. However, we must take in count that like any
image comparison, there is some degree of error that could be applied.
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 8:31 PM
Great analysis Guate.
Well, this is what I tried to find the weight of a tiger with that body length using Sauraha's dimensions.
Here are the calculations:
272 kg/197 cm = 1.38 kg/cm
So every cm accounts for an average of .72 kg of weight in the cat.
Thus, using basic stoichiometry:
(1.38 kg/cm) * (232 cm) = 320 kg
Then, I also found the chest girth using Sauraha's as the base:
140 cm/ 197 cm = .71
.71 * 232 cm = 164.87 cm chest girth
Next, I see if the chest girth value corresponds to the weight given solely looking at body length.
272 kg/ 140 cm = 1.94
1.94 * 164.87 = 319.84 kg approx.
So according to what I have found using Sauraha as a model the specimen is around 320 kg.
Do the dimensions seem right for a weight of this value?
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 8:52 PM
2. Body size of the tiger, based in Condylobasal length:
The second method to estimate the
body length of a tiger is using the condylobasal length. In this case, direct
measurements are already present in literature.
The database that I will use is that
of Christiansen & Adolfssen (2007):
CB-length HB-flesh HB-skeleton Ratio C-F Ratio
CN5698: 350.9mm 2040 mm 1653.3
mm 5.81 4.71
CN5697: 334.2mm 2060 mm 1636.5
mm 6.16 4.90
CN6049: 337.8mm 1950
mm 1647.0 mm 5.77 4.88
Average 5.91 4.83
The problem with this estimation is
that only scientific sources state Condylobasal lengths. For that reason, I
compile several skull measurements from tigers of the subspecies of Amur
(Mazák, 1967), Bengal and Indochinese (Pocock, 1939).
Here are my tables, separated by sex
GSL = Greatest Skull Length
CBL = Condilobasal Length
ZW = Zygomatic
ML = Mandibular
Amur tiger (Panthera
Source: Mazák, 1967.
Bengal tiger (Panthera
Source: Pocock, 1939.
Indochinese tiger (Panthera
* * *
P. t. altaica
P. t. tigris
P. t. corbetti
Many analyses can be made from these
results. As this last table shows, the Relation GSL-CBL in females is slightly smaller than in
males, which means that the skull of the females have relative larger
Condylobasal length than males, in relation with its sizes. It also seems
important to mention that the Relation GSL-ML is the same in males and females.
In this case, if we accept the hypothesis that the huge mandible fossil of China
is a tiger, then we can use the relation of 1.51 to get the calculated greatest
Assuming that the skull of Panthera tigris soloensis was a male, we
can use the ratio of 1.13 with the GSL of 390 cm that I estimated for the
specimen. The result is a Condylobasal length of 345.1 mm. In this case, the
next step is simple:
CB-length HB-flesh HB-skeleton Ratio C-F Ratio
CN6049: 337.8mm 1950 mm 1647.0
mm 5.77 4.88
Ngandong 345.1mm 2039 mm 1666.8
Based in this study, the body size
of the Ngandong tiger was of 204 cm, which is the same that the longest Bengal
tiger in scientific record (Male T-03; Karanth, 1993) and is much smaller than
the size estimated in the previous study. However the limits are between 199 –
213 cm. This upper limit seems much reliable as the longest tiger in record
(322 cm in total length, 213 cm in head-body length) had a greatest skull length
of 381 cm (Ward, 1914).
Analyzing this great tiger, the
condylobasal length of the skull is calculated at 337 mm, which means that this
particular tiger have a ratio of Condylobasal-Head-body length of 6.32,
somewhat larger than the captive specimens stated by Dr Christiansen. If we use
this large ratio, head-body length of the Ngandong tiger could be of 218 cm,
which seems more reliable for an animal of such large skull.
Is important to found more specimens
to make a more reliable estimation, but for the moment, this data suggest that
the head-body length of this specimen was of 204 – 218 cm.
Pd. The largest
tiger hunted by Dunbar Brander had a head-body length of 221 cm, although its
total length was of just 303 cm. This means that this tiger is the longest
specimen in record. However, as Brander don’t present any skull measurement, is
impossible to use it in this analysis.
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 8:58 PM
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 8:59 PM
tigerluver wrote:Great analysis Guate.
Well, this is what I tried to find the weight of a tiger with that body length using Sauraha's dimensions.Here are the calculations:272 kg/197 cm = 1.38 kg/cmSo every cm accounts for an average of .72 kg of weight in the cat.Thus, using basic stoichiometry:(1.38 kg/cm) * (232 cm) = 320 kgThen, I also found the chest girth using Sauraha's as the base:140 cm/ 197 cm = .71 .71 * 232 cm = 164.87 cm chest girthNext, I see if the chest girth value corresponds to the weight given solely looking at body length.272 kg/ 140 cm = 1.941.94 * 164.87 = 319.84 kg approx.So according to what I have found using Sauraha as a model the specimen is around 320 kg. Do the dimensions seem right for a weight of this value?
Great analysis Tigerluver, excellent
indeed. And for your question, yes, as any large tiger of more than 210 cm (or
chest girths of over 150 cm) is able to reach weights of up to 300 kg or slightly
more, without been baited. Taking in count that this tiger was much massive
than modern specimens, the weight of 320 kg seems to be reliable and is the
upper limit estimated by me and WaveRiders.
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:03 PM
Mon, Jan 16, 2012 3:34 AM
tigerluver wrote:Also, on Hertler and Volmer's work, they state they used correction factors to make sure not to over or under estimate the specimens. Does anyone know what they did for their corrections?
Unknown, as they don’t mention which
methods were used for the correction.
For the moment, WaveRiders and I
have the same opinion that Panthera
tigris soloensis probably weighed up to 320 kg, which is about the limit for the
exceptional modern Bnegal-Amur tiger specimens (normal specimens weigh up to 260 kg, empty
Mon, Jan 16, 2012 9:22 PM
Mon, Jan 16, 2012 11:13 PM
Mon, Jan 16, 2012 11:14 PM
Tue, Jan 17, 2012 2:58 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.