Author  Comment  

tigerluver.animalvsanimal  #21  
Guate, were you ever able to get in contact with Hertler and Volmer on what formulas and calculations they used to find the Ngandong's mass?






Mushiya1  #22  
i don't understand what is these obsessions with prehistoric cats ?
most of the estimations r wrong and fake........it'll be proven wrong in next next findings & revisions...... those prehistoric cats r never going to come back alive anyway....... 



perrault  #23  
THE FASCINATION ON THE FOSSIL RECORD IS A LAST FRONTIER SO TO SPEAK . Imagination runs wild when you think of the great beasts of the past . An acquired taste for sure . Most paleontoligists believe less than 30 percent of the fossil record has been discovered ! How many more great discoveries and awesome creatures will be found ? I for one cannot wait !




tigerluver.animalvsanimal  #24  
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:
Edited 2 times by tigerluver
Tue, Jan 10, 2012 12:21 AM.




GuateGojira  #25  
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 290300 kg is still plausible.




tigerluver.animalvsanimal  #26  
In Hooijer's document, there was a tiger with a humerus length of 381 mm. How large do you that individual could have been?




GuateGojira  #27  
tigerluver wrote: Actually, TigerLuver, in the first part of this topic, is an estimation of size based in this bone. Check it here:
So, with a humerus of 381 mm, this tiger was very large, larger than any tigerlion 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 the bone.




tigerluver.animalvsanimal  #28  
"In order to compensate for potential over or underestimates
we calculated correction factors for each specific element of species and/or genus respectively. 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)." From Hertler and Volmer 2008. 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?
Edited 1 time by tigerluver
Sun, Jan 15, 2012 7:34 PM.




GuateGojira  #29  
Good question. I don't know what is the meaning of the column of 100%
About the formulas used, they put in use just the two mentioned. The methods of Van Valkenburg (1990) is more reliable, although it gives lower estimations. The method of Anyonge (1993) gives huge estimations, and is more exaggerated. 



GuateGojira  #30  
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 headbody 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 bodyskull relation of 5, in other words, we need five skulls to get the headbody 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 headbody length of 195 cm in the skeleton.
Now based in the average difference of 37.1 cm (n=3) between the HBskeleton and HBinflesh, in the specimens of Christianse & Adolfssen (2007), the headbody 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.






tigerluver.animalvsanimal  #31  
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? 



GuateGojira  #32  
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):
CBlength HBflesh HBskeleton Ratio CF Ratio CS 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 and region. GSL = Greatest Skull Length CBL = Condilobasal Length ZW = Zygomatic wide ML = Mandibular length
Many analyses can be made from these results. As this last table shows, the Relation GSLCBL 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 GSLML 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 skull length.
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:
CBlength HBflesh HBskeleton Ratio CF Ratio CS 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 Ngandong 345.1mm 2039 mm 1666.8 mm
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 T03; 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 headbody 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 CondylobasalHeadbody length of 6.32, somewhat larger than the captive specimens stated by Dr Christiansen. If we use this large ratio, headbody 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 headbody length of this specimen was of 204 – 218 cm.
Pd. The largest tiger hunted by Dunbar Brander had a headbody 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.




tigerluver.animalvsanimal  #33  
So do you think that this tiger would have been 300320 kg or smaller?




GuateGojira  #34  
tigerluver wrote: 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.




tigerluver.animalvsanimal  #35  
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?




GuateGojira  #36  
tigerluver wrote: 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 BnegalAmur tiger specimens (normal specimens weigh up to 260 kg, empty belly).




Asad  #37  
tiger weights excess of 300 kg are obese and exagerated (burns 1982, Mazak, Rusini, Mazza, Yamaguch)
Of course Guate will bring forth some magical explanation proving 4 Phd's wrong.
A Lion had come to the end of his days and lay sick unto death at the mouth
of his cave, gasping for breath. The animals, his subjects, came round him and
drew nearer as he grew more and more helpless. When they saw him on the point of
death they thought to themselves: "Now is the time to pay off old grudges." So
the Boar came up and drove at him with his tusks; then a Bull gored him with his
horns; still the Lion lay helpless before them: so the Ass, feeling quite safe
from danger, came up, and turning his tail to the Lion kicked up his heels into
his face. "This is a double death," growled the Lion. Only cowards insult dying majesty.




perrault  #38  
Magical ? No, real data from reliable sources , yes . I will leave this to you guate .




Asad  #39  
Only from three schools and one of which is Dr Packers. Two birds with stone eh?
A Lion had come to the end of his days and lay sick unto death at the mouth
of his cave, gasping for breath. The animals, his subjects, came round him and
drew nearer as he grew more and more helpless. When they saw him on the point of
death they thought to themselves: "Now is the time to pay off old grudges." So
the Boar came up and drove at him with his tusks; then a Bull gored him with his
horns; still the Lion lay helpless before them: so the Ass, feeling quite safe
from danger, came up, and turning his tail to the Lion kicked up his heels into
his face. "This is a double death," growled the Lion. Only cowards insult dying majesty.




genao87  #40  
So GueteGojira, the size of the Panthera tigris soloensis is a confirmed 320kg so far until we get more fossils? what happen to the size of the other prehistoric tiger which GrizzlyClaws found huge fossils.
its ok to feel GUILTY....there is no SIN in pleasure


