Cave lions and American lions didn't really overlap in range, the American lion was south of the ice sheet

Makes sense to why they were grew to be so large.

U. m. tyrannus is not a simply brown bear subfossil?

@@marcosalerno4254 as of right now it could be a possibility once DNA testing could be done then they’ll know for sure. Most assume it to be a polar bear however

@@chir0pter oh ok thought I figured so since both Panthera spelaea and panthera atrox fossils was both found in Alaska and Yukon

I’ve been to la brea site, I fully recommend going there, all near downtown LA

@@RB-pm2ni I would love to go there myself

It was probably also intelligent enough to recognize the deadly traps and avoid them.

@@RB-pm2ni La Brea is La Brea St., which intersects Wilshire south of Hollywood: Not DTLA.

Like its genetic relative, Panthera atrox was probably a pride feline. Cave art seems to confirm the connection. Where team work guides circumstance, the cats affinity for open grassland only reinforces the hypothesis. Their scarcity in the tar pits also points towards packing behaviour. Smilodon seems to have been the common casualty, as opposed to the survivor.

Cutest statement ever 😂

They roared not meowed because it is from panthera and every cat from the genus panthera roars.

​@@jaydenlee7913 I bet they can meow like the Orange murder cow, the Tiger 😂

FR

A puuurocious pouncer

It's crazy to think that brainpower was able to make up for how weak and slow we are in comparison to a lot of other animals 😅 we got blessed big time

​@@Hawkeye83627 It wasn't just our intelligence but our dietary habits and physical adaptability to climate change helped us outlive most of the more resource expensive animals

Who says humans weren’t already in the Americas before anybody (came) here

@@180mmTV Im pretty sure humans originated in Africa, I'm not sure what you mean or what period you are talking about

​@@ama5598nobody knows were humans came from but we know The human nature doesn't change, it's observable in all eight billion of us living today and in all recorded history. Human nature didn't evolve from something else and it will naver evolve to something else

Big cats are no match for a good pointy stick and a little teamwork.

@@Uncle_Fred Tell that to the folks at Tsavo

​@@Uncle_Fred Don't forget big game dog packs.

Maybe a source of human paranoia. Always looking over your shoulder for these fantastic creatures. Respect for all our ancestors.

@@Uncle_Fred you say that now , but if we give you and four of your friends pointy sticks and then send you to Africa to fight lions , you all are gonna end up dead AF

THE NANDAGONG! TIGERS' WERE BIGGER ! HEAVIER TOO. PEOPLE HERE NEED TO ACTUALLY STUDY

If they were still around today thousands of people would be attacked every year trying to get selfies.

​@@captainamericaamerica8090 geez relax. Do you have a source?

@@captainamericaamerica8090 No, they were believed to have maxed out at 400kg.

@@mattmorris9283 Yes but his video is saying Lions are the largest when tigers are significantly larger than Lions. I think the largest cat today is actually a Liger.

There were no leopards in North america at all.

@@jaydenlee7913 That goes against what I've read from paleontologists. Of course, they aren't certain whether or not the cats they found were leopards or jaguars. It could be that the cats that I've heard of leopards could be like the "lions"; similar in many ways but different in many ways.

I've never heard of big cats in north America we couldn't tell if they were leopards or jaguars. What is the name of the big cat we couldn't tell if it was a leopard or a jaguar?

@@drivernjax Uhhh, it's pretty easy to distinguish between leopards and jaguars.

@@jaydenlee7913 Mountain Lions (aka Pumas) inhabit both North and South America, with big males approachig 200 lbs. in weight. An outsize idividual was weighed at 276 lbs. (125 kgs.) There are also Jaguars in Mexico (actually part of North America) and a few in the S/W USA and these can be 300 lbs. (136kgs). How is it that you've never heard of big cats in North America?

In my opinion, I think related males would've been in duos, and females would've been solitary, similar to cheetahs. Although they wouldn't have been in groups exceeding 2 since they're already a dominant apex predator.

@@zadas1132 Plausible.

Haha duos, don’t use ur imagination when thinking about these things. I believe it’s logical to assume they were a pack animal. Panthera Leo atrox was a lion, we also know it directly descended from panthera spelea. We know this is a pack animal, I believe it’s logical to assume they where pack animals and certainly not this duos and other stuff that’s just imagination

@@Shhhhh432 You realize that lions also form duos? No imagination necessary here. Typically its the males that do this. If the American lion was a pack hunter then it's likely to have behaved similarly, depending on the abundance of prey in the area. I'd be logical to assume it was until you consider their immense size and strength would make it less necessary if not unpractical to live in large groups, being easily twice the size of their ancestors.

@@ZombieBariothfirstly yes your right. However African lions being in duos not the typical. It happens often, just as lions move in trios and move solo. I’m sure if they were a social animal there would have been American lions in duos, however I think it’s illogical and imaginative to think for whatever reason this was the norm. The matter of their size is due to size of competitors and the size of the prey available. If an American lion pride took down an ice age bison, this is much more food than an African wilderbeast.

The cave lion was a social animal, we can see from cave art that it was at least as social as African lions. I think it’s logical to assume both panthera atrox and spelea were both very similar to modern lions and operated in the same niche. They are both species of panthera Leo. Also I must point out that the largest cats to ever exist is the Amphimachairodus, Machairodus and smilodon populator. The Asian species of amphimachairdous and the African species of Machairdous.

Isn't the mosbach lion bigger?

I’m not trying to argue but I read one paper where the authors suggested the American lion descended from P. Fosillis instead of Spelaea. Which would mean that Fosillis gave rise to both. Just a thought and slightly interesting.

@@soudino2723 mosbach lion is an unscientific name of the panthera fossilis, which was very large. Slightly larger than the American lion or of very similar size. The American lion was not over 400kg at max. Only older studies put it at over 400kg.

@@rahimjoseph211 nah mate no arguing here we are just guys interested in something we’ll never know the answer to. I mean the panthera fossilis evolved in Africa and the moved to Europe and went extinct by the late/middle Pleistocene. It sounds pretty illogical considering the first fossils of American lion are 300,000 years old and Africa does not connect to the Americas so I don’t see how that’s possible to be honest.

With how lions in captivity can make friends with other animals, now I want to see some artwork of an American lion and a Smilodon chilling together X3

Exactly

There's no official data showing that except some lion fanatics preaching it

@@pokemonitishere202 the nat geo the ones who did the Original test on the sub adult lion said that a fully grown lion would be around 1000psi tho, so the source that showed the 650psi you guys like to use so much admitted 3 different times that the actual bite force of a grown mature adult would be around 1000psi. Like what?

@@pokemonitishere202 Not to mention the fact the sub adult lion may have not bitten with its full force.

Lions can easily reach a bite force of more than 1000 pounds at the carnassials.

How about the Mosbach Lion

Liger

How about American lion, which could reach up to 520kg (1,153lbs) Or even higher.@@RyoSargeant

ngandong tigers were no bigger than siberian tigers. get a life and do your research

@@EternalEmperorofZakuul ligers are pure fat and their weight isnt healthy, they are mostly obese. dont compare obese cats to other cats.

Fan of Jean M. Auel maybe🧐

the american Lion and smilidon and its sub species were the reason the great Jaguar got pushed down to forested areas in southern america.they could not compete.

@@ashleyoasis7948 which great jaguar?

On account of his diet… Lasagna definitely builds muscle. And fat… lots of fat.

“Why do you have a picture of president garfield?” “Because I love lasagna”

What about the modern lions or tigers?

@@Diadema033 biggest tigers recorded are closer to that than we think tbh. For example, there was a captative siberian tiger exceding 110cm to the shoulder, and weighting 430kg (obviously obese). Over 105cm and +300kg in good shape is "quite normal". Even in the wild, +300kg siberians were still common in early-mid 20th century. About historical sizes, looking at some bones measures, biggest femur lenght I know is 429.5mm for a 334.2mm skull (condylobasal lenght, CB), which is not between the biggest ones. That was normal for a big Amur tiger in the past (average size in these cats decreased a lot during the last 70 years due to the indiscriminate hunting, targeting big males specially, and all the human presure in their habitats). Biggest skull in total lenght (GL) measured as much as 406mm. That is clearly over 350mm (CB). Bengal tiger biggest skull is almost the same lenght. So, probably the biggest modern tiggers have been "close" to that Ngandong beast. And still have the potential to reach incredible sizes. But only exceptionaly large ones. African Lions are quite smaller in therms of maximum size-body mass potential, despite they are nowadays similar in average size than both Bengal and Amur tigers. Bengal average size is the biggest indeed. So the biggest Prehistoric cats are arround 25% larger than modern ones. And we will find bigger individuals for sure. For example, there is a really big complete mandible from a pleistocene bornean tiger, which probably represents the biggest skull known for any big cat to this day. The total lenght should be something between 460-480mm (is 1.5x bigger than average tiger). The femur of this beast could be 530mm (1.5 x 353mm mixing the average femur of four tiger species). This is much longer than Ngandong tiger femur but is not 100% accurate and proportions in tigers, specially between species, vary a lot. But you can imagine... In summary and for an easy comparison we could say. Bengal, Amur, African lion reach up to 110cm to the shoulders. Exceptionaly large tigers 115cm (based on the Bones). Both Amur and Bengal arround 320-340kg maximum (without overweight). Panthera atrox, and fossilis should be in the 120cm range or more. With even heavier built than modern tigers. Arround 380-420kg or more. Then Ngandong Tiger should be longer and taller than that but maybe not a lot bigger in size. ~420-450kg (470kg estimation looks a bit off). And average size seems to be smaller than those from P. atrox or P. fossilis. (Some individuals bones are similar in sizes than modern tigers, specially females). Pleistocene bornean tiger skull represents a huge tiger reaching probably arround 130cm to the shoulders. This one could have been in the 480kg range I guess, taking into account they already had the modern tiger features.

​@@betofernandez5524 ngandong tigers were no bigger than siberian tigers. do your research and get a life. lions still hold the title of being the biggest and always will. Scientists haven't found a skull definitively identified as a Bornean tiger. Here's why: Lack of fossils: As mentioned earlier, there's no confirmed fossil evidence of tigers ever existing on Borneo. This includes skulls. Dayak beliefs and sightings: While Dayak traditions mention tigers, and there have been reported sightings, these aren't scientific proof. So, the skull you heard about likely belonged to another animal. Borneo has a rich fauna with big cats like the Sunda clouded leopard. It's possible the skull belonged to one of these native species. first of all, you are delusional because the bornean tigers did not exist. you are a fool who believes in fairytales that were told by parents to scare off their children during the ancient times. Scientifically unconfirmed: There's no definitive evidence, like fossils, to prove tigers ever lived on Borneo. Indigenous beliefs: The Dayak people of Borneo hold traditions about tigers, and some report sightings. Historical artifacts: There have been reports of tiger parts found in Borneo, but these could be explained by trade or travel.

@@betofernandez5524 acting all smart and as if though you know a lot? you wasted your time being a biassed and learning wrong information. sure the bornean tiger's skull have been found 💀(ok buddy). "No, there are currently no confirmed Bornean tiger skeletons. As of today's knowledge (June 24, 2024), the existence of a distinct Bornean tiger subspecies isn't scientifically proven. Here's why: Fossil Absence: There haven't been any discoveries of tiger fossils on Borneo, including complete or partial skeletons. Ambiguous Historical Records: Reports of tiger parts found in Borneo could be explained by trade or travel from other regions.(these skulls were small and probably shipped from another country or it was a clouded leopard's skull, this got people confused into thinking it was a tigers because clouded leopards and snow leopards were closely related to tigers more than leopards)

​@@betofernandez5524The ngandog tiger is actually smaller

Same reaction

I'm convinced cats have most humans on a spell at this point😂

My exact reaction as well. 😍

Larger mass and built more like a jaguar, so it would be around 40 something more or less

@@loserorangeorvoremonster8047 Actually, it had long legs because it lived in open country. If you look at the bone structure, it’s like legs gracile.

​@@tyrannotherium7873The past tense of run is ran, not rent.

@@a-lambo-boi lol my phone is a pain in the ass my bad

Well some dinosaurs runextremely fast. weight doesnt really matter for speed power does @@loserorangeorvoremonster8047

HE' NEEDS TO STUDY MORE! HE'S WRONG AGAIN

exactly! where the hell could you run to? 😆

I'm sure way back they took a lot of losses but over time as they became more intelligent they must have been some serious bad asses killing all kinds of fauna

they toke the "your trap in here with me". approach

Smilodon had extremely powerful Forearms but there are still quite a few of them that were trapped. So I don't think that's the reason. More likely American lions were more intelligent or more sparsely populated.

The only way anyone could be "certain" of this is if they witnessed this. The vast majority of all species of mammals that ever lived are now extinct, and the majority of extinct species remain unknown to science. Fossilization only occurs under a very narrow set of circumstance and there is no way to determine if any fossils are of the largest individuals of their type. ALL extinct animals may have grown to sizes larger than we have examples of. Granted, there are physical limits that can be determined, based on bone structure and simple physics. YOU may be 100% certain of your information, but meaningless without proof. The certainty exists only in your mind. You being "certain" does proove anything.

Collier, your assertions are meaningless without evidence. There has been multiple peer reviewed studies disproving the American lion being of more mass than the Smilodon populator. You argue from a stance of an appeal to ignorance, as you refuse to accept well proven arguments due to a number of reasons related to your stubbornness. One doesn’t need to exist during the time of these two animals in order to know which one is of more mass.

@@JimmoieieOkay, I'll examine your evidence. Post a link to these multiple peer reviewed studies you speak of and I'll stury them. You try to argue from a stance of superior knowledge yet you also don't comprehend the difference between "evidence" and proof. Sure, a preponderance of evidence can become an ACCEPTED truth, but accepted truths are not absolute truths, and are sometimes shown to be incorrect in the scientific world.

I will post these multiple peer reviewed studies once you come and officially debate me on discord. I argue from a stance of superior knowledge as I’ve been dealing with this topic far longer than you have. You say that I don’t comprehend the difference between evidence and proof, yet you do not provide sufficient warrant in order to substantiate your positive claims. The Smilodon populator being of more mass than the American lion is not of subjective truth but of objective truth. It’s true under all circumstances.

Okay, so you don't have the proof. Just say so. It's okay. There is no "discord." No one can know with certainty what the ultimate size of extinct creatures was, up to the limits of physics. As the one refuting the supposition the burden of proof is on you, not I. @@Jimmoieie

Human impact must be factored in. Natural climate change is much less likely to completely eradicate a species than this.

The American lion is NOT a lion. The word 'lion' in the name is not an indication of this (just as American cheetahs are not cheetahs). Only members of Panthera leo are lions. Formerly some authorities _did_ place it with Panthera leo, but current findings and taxonomy distinct place it as its own species; Panthera atrox. The taxonomy of the cave lions (there is more than one, you didn't even specify which!) is unsettled. Some authorities place it within Panthera leo, in which case it _is_ a lion. But others place it as distinct species, in which case, it is _not_ a lion.

@@Dr.Ian-Plect actually, the DNA confirm that it was a lion is even an article that even debunked it how does suggesting that it is a lion after all

@@tyrannotherium7873 Yeah, it's clear you are not worth engaging. Muted.

@@Dr.Ian-Plect and it’s clearly that you are not educated on

@@tyrannotherium7873 Listen, I'm not going to correct that nonsense. I know what I know and have the credentials. I appreciate that message though, as it allows me to mute you from the menu.

Thank you for this information! 🙏

Listen to that bit carefully, it does not state that, for average sizes.

The American lion had an average of 256 kgs and a maximum of possibly 400+ kgs for males. An average foxe basin male polar bear has a mass of 550 kgs.

Honestly it’s anyone’s guess, people say it’s a toss up between the ngandong tiger, American lion or smilodon populator

Tigers🐯 Were Never the Largest Felines.

@@johnnytightlips991 certainly not American lion, it’s either smilodon populator, amphimachairdous or ngandong tiger

@@divinepraise6931apart from today which they are

What you’ve just asserted can be dismissed via Hitchen’s razor as what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If a claim asserts the existence of something and is not provided sufficient warrant in order to verify it, it is baseless and conjectural.

But those aren't wild animals, ligers are too overweight, slow, and overheat easily to survive in the wild. Basically, it is comparing a couch potato to an athlete. Sure, the couch potato weighs more but Is it really impressive?

True, but Nook was a grossly overfed FAT liger. More impressive (well, to me) is the biggest Manchurian tiger, over 850 lbs. (386 kgs.) And that was a WILD animal.

@@theo21021 liger s aren't obese they only get obese when they get overfed. Nook the liger was overfed but yet he lived for 21 years

Correct.

Lion would still win in a fight, smildons teeth fall out very easily

256kg for American lion average weight it's still bigger than a Bengal tiger or African lion on average

@@SaviourGallate15 and that's just the average. The American lion was massive, bigger than all living big cats. People are so stupid, they compare an American lion to a Siberian tiger and they think a Siberian tiger is bigger😂. Siberian tiger is nothing compared to that.

@@BehnamAshur damm, just who the checks compare the Siberian tiger to an American lion that's crazy.

Nonsense, as I've laid out in the other thread.

@@Dr.Ian-PlectI’ve seen ur thread Ian. Your wrong.

@@Shhhhh432 Lay it out, that way you have some substance...

@@Shhhhh432 From the other thread. "I’ve seen ur thread Ian. Your wrong." - Lay it out, that way you have some substance... ------------------- "Ian you seem very bored. Maybe apply for some more hours at zoo, I heard they’ve upped your wage from 10 to 11 dollars an hour." - Instead what you have done is shown yourself to be a vacuous ignoramus, not worth the oxygen you consume The clown is muted.

@@Dr.Ian-Plect I did mate check what I sent you

"None of these cats were as big as a polar bear. They said that for dramatic effect" - you fail to understand what was _actually_ stated - here's a comment I responded to earlier, along with my reply. Take note. ----------- "Damn I had no idea smilodon outclasses a polar bear in size and weight. A friggin bear....and the lion is bigger than that" - There you go! I listened to the relevant bit of the video and immediately thought 'some people are going to mangle that as meaning it is larger than a polar bear'. THEY ARE NOT! A simple sentence that has you misunderstanding the facts! LISTEN properly to what is stated at 3:58. He is stating MAX. weight of Smilodon compared to AVERAGE weight of an 'adult polar bear'. Note the wording doesn't even specify MALE polar bear, it just says 'adult polar bear' (although it is in fact slightly above average for current male polar bear AVERAGE size). So, all that is being stated is that at MAX weight, the Smilodon (only the largest Smilodon species is this size, which wasn't specified) is larger than 'the AVERAGE adult polar bear'. Once ABOVE average size male polar bears are considered, it is comfortably larger overall.

@@Dr.Ian-PlectIan you seem very bored. Maybe apply for some more hours at zoo, I heard they’ve upped your wage from 10 to 11 dollars an hour.

@@Shhhhh432 From the other thread. "I’ve seen ur thread Ian. Your wrong." - Lay it out, that way you have some substance... ------------------- "Ian you seem very bored. Maybe apply for some more hours at zoo, I heard they’ve upped your wage from 10 to 11 dollars an hour." - Instead what you have done is shown yourself to be a vacuous ignoramus, not worth the oxygen you consume The clown is muted.

It is easy to say when you aren't directly competing and being threatened by them.

The ice age be like: 👁️ 👄 👁️

@@chrisdonish We live with brown bears, grizzly bears, black bears, and polar bears while the people of Asia live with tigers and sun bears and Africans live with their own lions and leopards. We would manage them similarly, I think.

thats only shows who is boss

They're not really considered an actual species since they can't breed

Siberian tiger is smaller than the lion in the wild you know nothing

​@@THELIONMAN7Yes nowadays they are smaller than African lions, because they shrinked. Back then I think siberian tigers were much larger and were the largest cats alive. That's prob why people are so used to saying "the siberian tiger is the largest big cat alive." Now it's just between the African lion and the Bengal Tiger.

@@MeltingMutation ye

But that is not a natural species

Unsubbed

Ur right the largest cats are Amphimachairodus (Asian and African) and the smilodon populator. Still a well made video, with good detail doesn’t deserve and unsub

Then what's the biggest ? 🤔

@@sitproperlywhilewatchingph423 I just said mate

Mosbach Lion is the Largest

Is your brain braining WE KNOW THE AMERICAN LION IS EXTINCT

Tigers are smaller than lions

@@THELIONMAN7 nope, Lions just have bigger head, jaw (males). Tigers are bigger and heavier than Lions, they also have stronger bites force compared to Lions. If they fight, Tigers are the winners.

That’s literally what science is lol

@@chosenone8964 No. “Science” can produce concrete evidence for its claims.

@@suckit5092 keyword: CAN

Ok boomer, enjoy your thesaurus

As long as they're in a place with enough sufficiently sized prey to hunt and access to water, lions could basically survive anywhere. They're already living life on hard mode being on the African serengeti. Virtually anywhere else that isn't like a desert or extreme cold environment should be easier than what they currently do. The biggest danger to them here would be that they start getting into human livestock too much and get killed by us for it.

No, as before the American lions arrived to the Americas, they were classified as beringian cave lions (a separate species to Panthera Leo).

He’s serving him with a court summons

"Technically the largest cat would be a member of the genus (Felis) Latin for cat, deemed to be true cats, largest extant species would be the Swamp cat (Felis chaus).The Atrox panther (Panthera atrox), (Atrox) = Cruel, (Panthera) = Wildbeast, they aren't considered a Lion, as they aren't of the species (Leo) Lion. They would be the largest known Felidae, Felid (resemblance of (Felis) cat), so being cat-like rather than a true cat, and being of the subfamily Pantherinae, they are Pantherine. A Feline would be a Feilid of the the subfamily Felinae = Feline. So a Swamp cat (Felis chaus) is a Feline, a Atrox panther (Panthera atrox) is a Pantherine." Hi zeb, you are missing pertinent points here, and they make your comment wrong; the convention and the specific translation of Felidae. 1. Any member of the family Felidae is a cat. This is a convention across zoology; the family name and what it translates to, and/or denotes, is applicable to all taxa within the group. Examples Felidae - cat family Canidae - dog family (canid = dog, -idae explained below) 2. Felidae; you brought up the subgroup Felis and its relevance from the translation. As well as the above convention, Felidae ITSELF ALSO contains the word cat; - Felidae is an amalgam of Felis and -idae, so the translation you yourself use as validation is contained within the word! - -idae is the derived term used as a suffix to denote members of a taxonomic family. So, in 2 ways, any member of Felidae is a cat; 1. By the family name convention as explained above 2. By the fact that in this specific example, the very word 'cat' is contained already within the family name Felidae, as explained above

@@Dr.Ian-Plect There's a difference between being, and being of, based on your logic that all in the family are, using the family Bovidae as an example, Bovidae (resemblance of (Bov/Bos) Ox), Gazelles, Springbok, Hamois, Sheep, Goats etc are Ox? No they aren't, they are Ox-like, true Ox are only in the subfamily Bovinae (Bovine), tribe Bovini. Any member in the Felidae family can loosely be referred to as a cat, but only (Felis) are true cats. Same as Yak (Bos) is true Ox, Muskox (Ovibos) not a true Ox, just of the family of being Ox-like.

@@zebedeemadness2672 I'm sticking to the Felidae point here. - can you validate this 'true cat' point? I'd like to know if it has standing and I'll update my hard drive, as it were - I think you need to concede that 'cat-like' isn't valid. They are cats, not 'cat-like. Cat-like in fact references feliforms, a distinct topic.

@@zebedeemadness2672 btw, I think I might have you muted from past instances of poor attitude (I didn't get a notification of your reply, I happened to be looking at the comments and saw it). The point being future replies will be patchy as don't get the notification.

@@Dr.Ian-Plect I've barely had any interaction with you, just couple times, on less you've muted me based on my interactions with Indy 😂.