Jaguar vs Epicyon

[rock]

which species of epicyon? that is important because any thing smaller than a epicyon haydeni would lose but assumimg this is a epicyon haydeni , i think this would go 50/50 more in favor of the dog but this can go either way.

[dinosauria101]

Yep, this is E. haydeni

[rock]

Jun 6, 2019 2:48:54 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Yep, this is E. haydeni

i give the slight edge to the epicyon haydeni as it is a little bit larger , but i say this is 50/50 and the jaguar can win if he skull bites the epicyon .

[elosha11]

I'm quoting this excellent post from blaze awhile back. His research sources seem to indicate Epicyon haydeni was maybe only around 215 pounds at max size (of course this is speculative as there are only a few fossils from which to extrapolate). But the huge 375 pound estimate is a flawed analogy. If this is the true size of Epicyon, I'm backing a full size male jaguar, certainly at the cat's mas weight. Parity weights is a closer question.

Jul 22, 2014 10:45:50 GMT 5 blaze said:

I'll repurpose my comment from cf.

The size of Epicyon haydeni is often exaggerated, a common figure you find on the internet is that large specimens weighted 170kg (375lbs), it comes from Sorkin (2008) and is a simple isometric scaling based on the largest E haydeni humerus and the humerus and weight of spotted hyena taken from the literature but, how accurate it really is?

To put its size in perspective we can compare the length of its skull, according to Munthe (1989), the average for the sample from the Port of Entry Pit (n=7) is 304mm, one centimeter longer than the skull of the dire wolf from Rancho La Brea, the "60kg" population. Munthe (1989) also provides limb measurements, which we can use to estimate body mass.

Measurements of Epicyon haydeni humeri.

Specimen	HL	HDW	HDAW
F:AM 67602	290	75	47.5
F:AM 67601	284	73.5	45.5
F:AM 67665	219	55	35.5

HL=humeral length
HDW=humeral distal width
HDAW=humeral distal articular width

Equations used

Source	Equation	R2	%PE	Notes
Christiansen (1999)	BM = 0.000009*HL2.881	0.977	28	All carnivora
Christiansen (1999)	BM = 0.002*HDW2.511	0.978	32	All carnivora
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 3.366*logHL - 6.215	0.978	22.4	Canidae+Ursidae
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 2.187*logHDW - 2.108	0.989	18	Canidae+Ursidae
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 2.276*logHDAW - 1.946	0.991	14.9	Canidae+Ursidae
Original	logBM = 2.8885*logHL - 5.2383	0.932	3.6	Canidae

Note: The equation labeled "original" I made it with the data from the supplemetal of Campione and Evans (2012)

Estimated mass of Epicyon haydeni

Specimen	C1999.HL	C1999.HDW	F2011.HL	F2011.HDW	F2011.HDAW	Original.HL	Mean
F:AM 67602	112	102	118	98	74	75	97
F:AM 67601	105	97	110	94	67	71	91
F:AM 67665	50	47	46	50	38	33	44

The smallest humerus comes from Port of Entry Pit while the larger two come from the Jack Swayze quarry, this quarry only turned up big specimens, averaging 15% larger than the those from Port of Entry Pit and other localities based on dental measurements but comparable to the larger specimens of those same localities (Baskin, 1998), whatever the two larger humeri represent average or large individuals in the context of that specific locality I don't know but they definitely are the largest Epicyon humeri known.

Regarding its robustness and grappling ability, this is what Munthe (1989) says:

The slenderer skeletons of Epicyon saevus and E. haydeni compared to those of the Aelurodon group, indicates that the former were more cursorial, possible capable of longer-distance travel. E. validus (junior synonym of E. haydeni), however, was quite a heavy animal; no living carnivore of that size is capable of long-distance running. Osteoborus (junior synonym of Borophagus) and Borophagus were possibly the least cursorial of the larger borophaghines. Their limbs in some cases are even more robust than those of E. validus, and aspects of their skeletons indicate a greater freedom of movement at the major limb joints than in other taxa. [...]

Comparisons between the forelimbs of borophagines and the extant carnivores discussed above show that, while possessing some modifications for cursorial locomotion, the borophagine forelimb, and particularly the antebrachium, was capable of a greater range of movement than is possible in living canids and hyaenids. It's versatility, however, was probably not as great as in felids.

Other things that diminish their grappling ability compared to cats according to Munthe (1989) are their blunt non-retractable claws and their relatively small paws with more appressed (pressed closely together) digits.

[rock]

Jun 6, 2019 11:09:57 GMT 5 elosha11 said:

I'm quoting this excellent post from blaze awhile back. His research sources seem to indicate Epicyon haydeni was maybe only around 215 pounds at max size (of course this is speculative as there are only a few fossils from which to extrapolate). But the huge 375 pound estimate is a flawed analogy. If this is the true size of Epicyon, I'm backing a full size male jaguar, certainly at the cat's mas weight. Parity weights is a closer question.

Jul 22, 2014 10:45:50 GMT 5 blaze said:

I'll repurpose my comment from cf.

The size of Epicyon haydeni is often exaggerated, a common figure you find on the internet is that large specimens weighted 170kg (375lbs), it comes from Sorkin (2008) and is a simple isometric scaling based on the largest E haydeni humerus and the humerus and weight of spotted hyena taken from the literature but, how accurate it really is?

To put its size in perspective we can compare the length of its skull, according to Munthe (1989), the average for the sample from the Port of Entry Pit (n=7) is 304mm, one centimeter longer than the skull of the dire wolf from Rancho La Brea, the "60kg" population. Munthe (1989) also provides limb measurements, which we can use to estimate body mass.

Measurements of Epicyon haydeni humeri.

Specimen	HL	HDW	HDAW
F:AM 67602	290	75	47.5
F:AM 67601	284	73.5	45.5
F:AM 67665	219	55	35.5

HL=humeral length
HDW=humeral distal width
HDAW=humeral distal articular width

Equations used

Source	Equation	R2	%PE	Notes
Christiansen (1999)	BM = 0.000009*HL2.881	0.977	28	All carnivora
Christiansen (1999)	BM = 0.002*HDW2.511	0.978	32	All carnivora
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 3.366*logHL - 6.215	0.978	22.4	Canidae+Ursidae
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 2.187*logHDW - 2.108	0.989	18	Canidae+Ursidae
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 2.276*logHDAW - 1.946	0.991	14.9	Canidae+Ursidae
Original	logBM = 2.8885*logHL - 5.2383	0.932	3.6	Canidae

Note: The equation labeled "original" I made it with the data from the supplemetal of Campione and Evans (2012)

Estimated mass of Epicyon haydeni

Specimen	C1999.HL	C1999.HDW	F2011.HL	F2011.HDW	F2011.HDAW	Original.HL	Mean
F:AM 67602	112	102	118	98	74	75	97
F:AM 67601	105	97	110	94	67	71	91
F:AM 67665	50	47	46	50	38	33	44

The smallest humerus comes from Port of Entry Pit while the larger two come from the Jack Swayze quarry, this quarry only turned up big specimens, averaging 15% larger than the those from Port of Entry Pit and other localities based on dental measurements but comparable to the larger specimens of those same localities (Baskin, 1998), whatever the two larger humeri represent average or large individuals in the context of that specific locality I don't know but they definitely are the largest Epicyon humeri known.

Regarding its robustness and grappling ability, this is what Munthe (1989) says:



Other things that diminish their grappling ability compared to cats according to Munthe (1989) are their blunt non-retractable claws and their relatively small paws with more appressed (pressed closely together) digits.

jaguars do not reach more than 210 lbs most of the time so i do not think the jaguar is heavier also epicyon was built more like a big cat so i think it is durale enough to survive the jaguars attacks and retailte back.

[dinosauria101]

Jun 6, 2019 11:09:57 GMT 5 elosha11 said:

I'm quoting this excellent post from blaze awhile back. His research sources seem to indicate Epicyon haydeni was maybe only around 215 pounds at max size (of course this is speculative as there are only a few fossils from which to extrapolate). But the huge 375 pound estimate is a flawed analogy. If this is the true size of Epicyon, I'm backing a full size male jaguar, certainly at the cat's mas weight. Parity weights is a closer question.

Jul 22, 2014 10:45:50 GMT 5 blaze said:

I'll repurpose my comment from cf.

The size of Epicyon haydeni is often exaggerated, a common figure you find on the internet is that large specimens weighted 170kg (375lbs), it comes from Sorkin (2008) and is a simple isometric scaling based on the largest E haydeni humerus and the humerus and weight of spotted hyena taken from the literature but, how accurate it really is?

To put its size in perspective we can compare the length of its skull, according to Munthe (1989), the average for the sample from the Port of Entry Pit (n=7) is 304mm, one centimeter longer than the skull of the dire wolf from Rancho La Brea, the "60kg" population. Munthe (1989) also provides limb measurements, which we can use to estimate body mass.

Measurements of Epicyon haydeni humeri.

Specimen	HL	HDW	HDAW
F:AM 67602	290	75	47.5
F:AM 67601	284	73.5	45.5
F:AM 67665	219	55	35.5

HL=humeral length
HDW=humeral distal width
HDAW=humeral distal articular width

Equations used

Source	Equation	R2	%PE	Notes
Christiansen (1999)	BM = 0.000009*HL2.881	0.977	28	All carnivora
Christiansen (1999)	BM = 0.002*HDW2.511	0.978	32	All carnivora
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 3.366*logHL - 6.215	0.978	22.4	Canidae+Ursidae
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 2.187*logHDW - 2.108	0.989	18	Canidae+Ursidae
Figueridio et al. (2011)	logBM = 2.276*logHDAW - 1.946	0.991	14.9	Canidae+Ursidae
Original	logBM = 2.8885*logHL - 5.2383	0.932	3.6	Canidae

Note: The equation labeled "original" I made it with the data from the supplemetal of Campione and Evans (2012)

Estimated mass of Epicyon haydeni

Specimen	C1999.HL	C1999.HDW	F2011.HL	F2011.HDW	F2011.HDAW	Original.HL	Mean
F:AM 67602	112	102	118	98	74	75	97
F:AM 67601	105	97	110	94	67	71	91
F:AM 67665	50	47	46	50	38	33	44

The smallest humerus comes from Port of Entry Pit while the larger two come from the Jack Swayze quarry, this quarry only turned up big specimens, averaging 15% larger than the those from Port of Entry Pit and other localities based on dental measurements but comparable to the larger specimens of those same localities (Baskin, 1998), whatever the two larger humeri represent average or large individuals in the context of that specific locality I don't know but they definitely are the largest Epicyon humeri known.

Regarding its robustness and grappling ability, this is what Munthe (1989) says:



Other things that diminish their grappling ability compared to cats according to Munthe (1989) are their blunt non-retractable claws and their relatively small paws with more appressed (pressed closely together) digits.

I believe you'd be correct there elosha. It seems to have been stated on both Carnivoras that Epicyon wasn't nearly as big as people thought, and this could help reinforce that viewpoint

[rock]

Jun 6, 2019 15:41:14 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Jun 6, 2019 11:09:57 GMT 5 elosha11 said:

I'm quoting this excellent post from blaze awhile back. His research sources seem to indicate Epicyon haydeni was maybe only around 215 pounds at max size (of course this is speculative as there are only a few fossils from which to extrapolate). But the huge 375 pound estimate is a flawed analogy. If this is the true size of Epicyon, I'm backing a full size male jaguar, certainly at the cat's mas weight. Parity weights is a closer question.

I believe you'd be correct there elosha. It seems to have been stated on both Carnivoras that Epicyon wasn't nearly as big as people thought, and this could help reinforce that viewpoint

nope these are underestimations , not according to the florida mesueam who studies these fossils


www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/species/epicyon-haydeni/

[creature386]

What are you referring to? The part where they compared Epicyon's size to a grizzly? This is not an estimate the museum staff made, but a quote from a paper by Wang et al. (1999) which includes this paragraph:

Large samples of referred specimens available for this study permit rather complete knowledge about Epicyon haydeni both in dental and skeletal morphology and in temporal and geographic variation. As the largest canid ever evolved, E. haydeni reached the size of a grizzly bear. The large size and bone-crush- ing dental morphology make this species easy to recognize.

From" Wang, X., R.H. Tedford, and B.E. Taylor. 1999. Phylogenetic systematics of the Borophaginae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 243:1-391."
digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/1588/v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/bul/B243-0002.pdf?sequence=1
Normally, there'd be absolutely nothing wrong with a source like this. If we had no idea how big Epicyon was and someone cited a scientific paper comparing it to a grizzly, that would be something great to work with.
However, if we have an in-depth discussion about accurate measurements and estimates (which was what blaze started), a statement with no known methodology does not help.

[rock]

Jun 6, 2019 18:17:39 GMT 5 creature386 said:

What are you referring to? The part where they compared Epicyon's size to a grizzly? This is not an estimate the museum staff made, but a quote from a paper by Wang et al. (1999) which includes this paragraph:

Large samples of referred specimens available for this study permit rather complete knowledge about Epicyon haydeni both in dental and skeletal morphology and in temporal and geographic variation. As the largest canid ever evolved, E. haydeni reached the size of a grizzly bear. The large size and bone-crush- ing dental morphology make this species easy to recognize.

From" Wang, X., R.H. Tedford, and B.E. Taylor. 1999. Phylogenetic systematics of the Borophaginae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 243:1-391."
digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/1588/v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/bul/B243-0002.pdf?sequence=1
Normally, there'd be absolutely nothing wrong with a source like this. If we had no idea how big Epicyon was and someone cited a scientific paper comparing it to a grizzly, that would be something great to work with.
However, if we have an in-depth discussion about accurate measurements and estimates (which was what blaze started), a statement with no known methodology does not help.

thanks for the information , anyhow i do not know if blazes statement is really better than a palentologists statements , according to some sorces they grew as big as a grizzly bear and some sources say they grew as big as a male african lion

[dinosauria101]

Jun 6, 2019 18:40:50 GMT 5 rock said:

Jun 6, 2019 18:17:39 GMT 5 creature386 said:

What are you referring to? The part where they compared Epicyon's size to a grizzly? This is not an estimate the museum staff made, but a quote from a paper by Wang et al. (1999) which includes this paragraph:From" Wang, X., R.H. Tedford, and B.E. Taylor. 1999. Phylogenetic systematics of the Borophaginae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 243:1-391."
digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/1588/v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/bul/B243-0002.pdf?sequence=1
Normally, there'd be absolutely nothing wrong with a source like this. If we had no idea how big Epicyon was and someone cited a scientific paper comparing it to a grizzly, that would be something great to work with.
However, if we have an in-depth discussion about accurate measurements and estimates (which was what blaze started), a statement with no known methodology does not help.

thanks for the information , anyhow i do not know if blazes statement is really better than a palentologists statements , according to some sorces they grew as big as a grizzly bear and some sources say they grew as big as a male african lion

Well blaze is very good with animal morphology, so even though they may not be a palaeontologist, I think we can take their advice with more than just a few grains of salt

[rock]

Jun 6, 2019 20:54:45 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Jun 6, 2019 18:40:50 GMT 5 rock said:

thanks for the information , anyhow i do not know if blazes statement is really better than a palentologists statements , according to some sorces they grew as big as a grizzly bear and some sources say they grew as big as a male african lion

Well blaze is very good with animal morphology, so even though they may not be a palaeontologist, I think we can take their advice with more than just a few grains of salt

not really , i am not saying he is wrong here all i am saying is i think a professional is a much better source to use.

[elosha11]

Just so we're clear, I'm assuming Blaze compiled this information and did his own calculations. He's obviously an extremely knowledgeable poster, so I respect what he says, even if this isn't formal research.

I guess I'm just going to look at this as a parity contest, and give both animals respectable size of 220 pounds (which might not be fair to epicyon if it got much larger and this was only a subadult size). Assuming this is a comfortable adult weight for both animals, I'm calling it 50/50.

[dinosauria101]

I might give an edge to the canine at parity; it'd have jaws and grappling, as well as superior stamina. But close one

[rock]

Jun 8, 2019 16:05:45 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

I might give an edge to the canine at parity; it'd have jaws and grappling, as well as superior stamina. But close one

who would you favor without parity?

[dinosauria101]

Jun 8, 2019 23:52:02 GMT 5 rock said:

Jun 8, 2019 16:05:45 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

I might give an edge to the canine at parity; it'd have jaws and grappling, as well as superior stamina. But close one

who would you favor without parity?

The jaguar, with a mass advantage of 20 percent or more
Any more size advantage to the Epicyon makes this one decisive, on the other hand