When many people think sabre-toothed cat (or more incorrectly sabre-toothed tiger) they usually conjure up images of genera such as Megantereon and Smilodon, large Pliocene/Pleistocene era big cats that have the trademark oversized canines. However these cats were neither the first or only group of mammals to develop this body form, and going as far away back as the Eocene period, we can begin to find specialised predatory mammals so much like the later cats that they continue to cause confusion and controversy to this day. These are the nimravids.
What is a nimravid?
Nimravids
look like cats, and in all likelihood they probably hunted like cats
too, but there are a number of differences. The most clearly
definable trait that identifies nimravids requires the preservation of
the skull. The precise part of the skull that you need to look at is
the auditory bulla, a rounded growth towards the rear and on the
underside of the skull that forms part of the ear structure. In true
cats the auditory bulla is chambered, split into more than one
segment. In nimravids however the auditory bulla is a single chamber
with no bony division.
Other
nimravid characteristics are harder to spot and usually require an
expert eye trained in the differences to identify. In more laymen’s
terms, the skulls of nimravids are generally more primitive than true
cats, although this should come as no surprise since nimravids appear
tens of millions of years before the cats. Nimravid paws are also
more like those of canids and adapted more for life on the ground
rather than climbing up and through trees. Another additional
difference is the proportionately shorter legs of nimravids as well as
their more plantigrade postures (walking with the foot bones in
contact with the ground) whereas true cats are digitigrade (walking
on just their toes).
Nimravids
tend to possess enlarged canine teeth, although the extent to which
they are enlarged can vary considerably between genera. Some like
Hoplophoneus
had teeth so large that they were in proportion to later
machairodonts like Smilodon. However the canine
teeth of nimravids
were not as refined as the later machairodonts, with the teeth often
slightly thicker. Also while the lower jaws of machairodonts are
adapted to accommodate the upper canines, nimravids typically have
enlarged flanges of bone that extended down from the lower jaw to help
protect the upper canines when the jaws were closed.
Briefly
returning to the teeth, the differences in canine size and form
between nimravid genera is probably down to different kinds of prey
specialisation. The large curved sabre-like teeth of some genera were
better suited for work on larger prey where the large teeth could
easily sink into a soft spot like the throat where there was less
chance for the relatively weak teeth to break against the preys bones.
The genera with shorter, rounder canines however probably
specialised in hunting smaller prey where tooth contact with bones was
more likely to happen. Here the smaller size would reduce the chance
of contact with bone while the more conical form reinforced the teeth
against breakage on occasions when the teeth did strike bone. In
addition the genera that had more heavily serrated teeth may have
hunted animals with thicker and/or tougher skin that was more easily
sliced thanks to the serration.
Nimravid
fossils first appear in the later stages of the Eocene with most known
from North America, though Asian fossils are also known from
approximately this time. During this period the planet had entered a
cooling phase which saw the beginning of a gradual reduction in
tropical forests to more open scrub. In these ecosystems nimravids
were likely ambush hunters of mammals such as primitive horses like
Hyracotherium
and oreodonts. As the Oligocene progressed the global
cooling and the climate change continued, but the nimravids seem to
have thrived during this era and remained one of the main types of
predatory mammals across Eurasia and North America.
By
the Miocene however the Nimravids seem to have been on the decline.
Out of nine established nimravid genera known in 2012, only three
of these were known to have Miocene aged fossils. Two of these,
Dinictis
and Nimravus
only seem to have made it as far the
Aquitanian, the first stage of the Miocene. The only genus at this
time known to have made it as far as the late Miocene (specifically
the Tortonian period) is Pogonodon.
This decline coincides with the
on-going climate change towards grassy plains, something that saw the
types of available prey changing, possibly to the point where
nimravids could only continue to survive by specialising in their
hunting behaviour. Nimravids do not seem to have been the only
predator group affected though, with others dominant groups such as
the creodonts, mesonychids and entelodonts
reducing in the number of
genera before disappearing completely in the Miocene.
The
one main group of predators that bucked this trend and thrived in the
Miocene where the amphicyonids,
better known as the ‘bear dogs’.
It was probably competition from these and other more advanced
predators that forced the remaining nimravids into the side-lines where
they had to eek a living in the few locations that could support their
method of hunting, until these areas also disappeared and the
nimravids with them. So far no nimravid remains are known from any
later than the Tortonian period around nine million years ago.
The
Nimravidae once had many more genera included within it, however one
of these genera called Barbourofelis
was intensively studied to the
point that in it was used to create a sub group called the
Barbourofelinae (Schultz et al. - 1970). Then in 2004 a
new study by Morlo et al. resulted in the creation of the
Barbourofelidae, a family distinct from the Nimravidae that become
the new home of Barbourofelis and those genera most
like it. Today
these are called the barbourofelids.
What is a barbourfelid?
Barbourofelids
still possess some of the difference that make the Nimravids a distinct
group, such as a similar auditory bullae, but the other differences
between them and true cats of the Felidae are even more subtle. So
subtle in fact that an increasing number of palaeontologists are
questioning if the barbourfelids should be separated from the felids at
all. Unfortunately this remains a grey area with some researchers
classing them as a distinct group within the Carnivora, while others
include them within the Feliformia, the group that includes the
Felidae (cats).
When
the nimravids started to decline in the early Miocene the
barbourofelids began to appear. It is quite possible that their
appearance could have been one of the main factors that contributed to
the demise of the nimravids since not only were they better adapted to
hunt the new types of herbivores, but they would have also been
hunting in the same ecological niche as the now less well adapted
nimravids. Being more cat-like than the nimravids may have also
afforded the barbourofelids with a better chance of holding their
ground against the other new predators such as new amphicyonid forms,
particularly the larger amphicyonines.
Ultimately
however it seems that the barbourofelids did not survive beyond the
Miocene since the last barbourofelid remains are not dated to be any
more recent than Messinian stage of the Miocene. The cause of the
extinction is not certain, but continuing environmental changes along
with the appearance of new creatures that were even better adapted to
live in them than the barbourofelids probably did away with this
group. One group of predators that probably had the most impact upon
the disappearance of the barbourofelids is the arrival of the true cats
during the late Miocene. One well known genus in particular called
Machairodus
would continue the sabre-toothed form which in turn would
go onto many other types of genera, with the machairodont family (
the true sabre-toothed cats) carrying on for over five million years
until the end of the Pleistocene.
Could nimravids and barbourfelids
be considered true cats?
By
current definitions no, but by future definitions anything is
possible. Most of the classification confusion about nimravids and
barbourofelids all comes down to the fact that we are currently working
to an incomplete fossil record of the Eocene to Miocene eras. While
no one knows what the future holds, it is a virtual certainty that it
is only a matter of time before the next nimravid or barbourofelid
remains are found. Not only will these tell us more about the
temporal and geological distribution of these two groups, we might
strike lucky and find a new form that helps explain this difference and
perhaps eventual progression of one form into another. Alternatively
we may find an animal that could be more directly ancestral to this
group and perhaps even the Felidae too. Discoveries such as scenario
can and continue to happen in other fields of palaeontology, and
while we should consider that this may never happen in for these two
groups, we should at least continue to look for what is left to be
found.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |