rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 25, 2019 23:51:27 GMT 5
i mean a larger set of teeth , we are only making size even , not jaw size even At even jaw size, the wolf would have an advantage at even jaw size yes but for this fight are you eveneing out the jaw size? still have not made that clear
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jul 26, 2019 0:04:13 GMT 5
At even jaw size, the wolf would have an advantage at even jaw size yes but for this fight are you eveneing out the jaw size? still have not made that clear We can do both. And even at weight parity, the wolf has an advantage. It has a proportionately much bigger head (with a 50 kg wolf having a 24 cm skull and a 190 kg lion having a 36.9 cm skull, imagine who'd have the bigger skull at parity!)
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 26, 2019 1:41:36 GMT 5
at even jaw size yes but for this fight are you eveneing out the jaw size? still have not made that clear We can do both. And even at weight parity, the wolf has an advantage. It has a proportionately much bigger head (with a 50 kg wolf having a 24 cm skull and a 190 kg lion having a 36.9 cm skull, imagine who'd have the bigger skull at parity!) in which case i guess the wolf would have a better bite , though we were just using regular bites from respective sizes
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jul 26, 2019 9:35:34 GMT 5
We can do both. And even at weight parity, the wolf has an advantage. It has a proportionately much bigger head (with a 50 kg wolf having a 24 cm skull and a 190 kg lion having a 36.9 cm skull, imagine who'd have the bigger skull at parity!) in which case i guess the wolf would have a better bite , though we were just using regular bites from respective sizes No, of course not.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 13, 2019 23:12:06 GMT 5
We can do both. And even at weight parity, the wolf has an advantage. It has a proportionately much bigger head (with a 50 kg wolf having a 24 cm skull and a 190 kg lion having a 36.9 cm skull, imagine who'd have the bigger skull at parity!) (190kg/50kg)^0.33*24cm = 37.5cm Assuming your figures are correct, I don’t think you can call this difference of literally 6mm "much bigger". We can also look at bite forces: Wroe et al. 2005 feature a wolf with a 22.92 cm basal skull length and a canine bite force of 593 N and a lion with a 33.41 cm basal skull length and bite force of 1768 N. These are dry-skull estimates, so they might not be terribly accurate in absolute terms, but at least as far as we can tell they should accurately reflect relative bite forces between these two. Since according to your figures (wherever they come from) the two would have almost the exact same skull length at equal body mass, we can scale the wolf up to the same skull length as the lion: (33.41cm/22.92cm)^2*593N = 1260N The appendix also contains the carnassial bite forces estimated for the same specimens; 1033 N for the wolf, 3085 N for the Lion. (33.41cm/22.92cm)^2*1033N = 2194N If we scaled that up to reflect the length difference between the lion skull and the "much bigger" (well, 1.6% longer) skull of the wolf you cite, we’d get figures around 3.3% higher for the wolf, or 1301 and 2266 N. Which would suggest that at similar body mass a wolf would actually have a significantly weaker bite than a lion. Which is not wholly surprising, given the implication of your figures of roughly equal skull length, because at equal skull length, the lion’s skull would be far more voluminous, with a proportionately shorter snout and bigger adductor-chamber, and presumably higher mechanical advantage. Wroe, S., McHenry, C. and Thomason, J. 2005. Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272 (1563): 619–625.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 13, 2019 23:19:43 GMT 5
Shocker! That was not what I had expected in the least!
Could make for a good post in the feeding apparatus thread however
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 14, 2019 0:36:44 GMT 5
Hmm well firstly, this isn’t really a matter of functional morphology, just simple scaling, so I don’t think so.
Secondly, these are your own data suggesting relatively similar skull-length at weight parity. As I wrote, I don’t know where you got them from. I would have also expected the wolf to have a significantly larger skull at weight parity (at least canid skulls seem to very decisively outsize those of similar-sized felines, and, while larger, pantherine skulls didn’t strike me as that much bigger at similar sizes), so I guess the question is, on a scale from 1 to 10, how sure are you about the whole "50 kg wolf having a 24 cm skull and a 190 kg lion having a 36.9 cm skull"-thing?
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 14, 2019 0:46:54 GMT 5
|
|