Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 4976779" data-attributes="member: 2205">You happen to have hit on one of my passionate hobbies.  Although it's a bit of a tangent, let me address each of these in turn.That's true for the north american species, Smilodon fatalis, although that would have been a big lion or tiger.  The south american species, Smilodon populator, is however one of the largest species of of the cat-family known, period, and would have been quite a bit bigger than even the largest lion or tiger today.Although keep in mind, that both the European cave lion, Panthera leo fossilus and the American lion, Panthera leo atrox, would each have been a good 25% larger than the largest population of African lions today, too.No, they weren't.  In fact, wooly mammoths would have been a bit smaller both in height and in weight.  However, there is one species of mammoth. Mammuthus sungari, which is quite a bit larger than most elephant species today.<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Mammuthus-sungari.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />However, the mammoths of North America and the wooly mammoths (of north america, Europe and Siberia) were not.  It's also interesting to note that mammoths are actually true elephants, and are in fact more closely related to Asian elephants than Asian elephants are to African elephants.  If the Columbian mammoth had survived a little bit longer, to have been discovered by Europeans, then it would almost certainly merely have been called the American elephant.That is true; and it's also difficult to prove that something didn't survive longer just because you don't have record of it.  You can't prove a negative.  Depending on how generous you are with accepting circumstantial evidence, there's a lot of it kicking around to suggest that many Pleistocene mammals actually survived into the historical period and we literally just missed seeing them.Now they're saying 40,000 years ago instead.  Still, though... cool.Actually, they weren't really very much like hyenas.  Hyenadon means hyena-tooth, but otherwise their anatomy was pretty different.I haven't.  Then again, all large, aggressive wild cattle-like creatures can probably be pretty well represented by bison stats.Spotted lions are cryptids, actually.  Nobody's ever confirmed that they really ever existed.  You probably mean the above-mentioned 25% larger European cave lions or American lions.Titanotheres weren't really closely related to rhinos at all, and in fact were only superficially rhino-like horse relatives, of all things.  Their "horns" couldn't be used the same way as a rhino's horns, as they were oriented side to side rather than front to back, plus they were rather slender and made of bone rather than keratin.  It's not actually clear what they did with them.  They may have been more for display than anything else.In any case, titanotheres are also just another name for brontotheres, and I know stats for them have popped up somewhere in the various monster books before, and could be easily adapted to Pathfinder.</blockquote>

Verification