|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 31, 2015 2:56:07 GMT 5
So, some people on Carnivora have argued that maximum bite force is irrelevant. Their reasoning is that since only X amount of force is needed to do something like break bone, any excessive force is unecessary and a broken bone is a broken bone. They believe that so long as the bite is powerful enough to kill the opponent that bite force doesn't matter.
What do you feel? How relevant do you believe it is (ignoring all the other things that determine bite potency)?
I personally cannot bring myself to believe this. I mean, if there was a fight between say, two equivalent-sized tyrannosaurines and one bit, I don't know, three times as hard as the other, would you really say, "50/50, they both have the jaws to easily kill the other"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Oct 31, 2015 4:04:25 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 31, 2015 4:10:45 GMT 5
Any discrepancy that can be considered significant I guess.
In the hypothetical example I give in the OP, there certainly is a substantial difference, but even then there appears to be disagreement on its importance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Oct 31, 2015 5:27:41 GMT 5
Any discrepancy that can be considered significant I guess. In the hypothetical example I give in the OP, there certainly is a substantial difference, but even then there appears to be disagreement on its importance. The disparity has to very significant before it starts to make a difference, in my opinion. I look at it this way if you can accomplish everything your opponent can with less force than what advantage does that extra force give them? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 31, 2015 18:03:11 GMT 5
While I wouldn't say it is completely irrelevant, I'd only consider it a mentionable advantage if there is either an enormous maximum bite force difference or if both combatants heavily rely on bite force. In your example, it is surely relevant, but I don't know if one can that easily call certain things advantageous and others not. Some advantages depend on who is fighting and how the difference looks. I mean, maximum speed is usually irrelevant, but it is surely not unimportant if one combatant has a maximum speed of 5 km/h and the other 120 km/h.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 1, 2015 0:09:33 GMT 5
Yes! That's pretty much what I believe. But it seems that some members on Carnivora are suggesting otherwise, even if there's quite a large difference and both animals rely on bite force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Nov 1, 2015 2:39:42 GMT 5
Yes! That's pretty much what I believe. But it seems that some members on Carnivora are suggesting otherwise, even if there's quite a large difference and both animals rely on bite force. I would go as far as to say that even if both animals rely on biteforce if the difference isn't significant it still isn't much of an advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 1, 2015 3:04:42 GMT 5
It depends on what the animals use their jaws for. There are no two animals with the exact same jaw morphology and reliance on powerful biting but yet significant bite force differences between them.
But there are some animals with relatively consistent jaw morphologies and certain bite force trends, e.g. carnivorans, where bite force does correlate with macrophagous capabilities. Those are certainly a factor deserving of consideration. But of course that relationship stops working when you try to apply it to certain oddball groups, e.g. machairodontids, or over a wider range of taxa (e.g. including the many ziphodont or comparable animals among non-mammals).
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Nov 1, 2015 4:22:37 GMT 5
At any rate dentition is far more important than biteforce is.
In most cases at least (crocodiles are a certain exception that pops into my Mind)
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 1, 2015 5:00:58 GMT 5
Yes! That's pretty much what I believe. But it seems that some members on Carnivora are suggesting otherwise, even if there's quite a large difference and both animals rely on bite force. I would go as far as to say that even if both animals rely on biteforce if the difference isn't significant it still isn't much of an advantage. I would agree that. But an enormous difference in bite force (especially when both combatants rely on it) was listed as a special circumstance where it does become quite a relevant fact to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Nov 1, 2015 7:02:56 GMT 5
For animals that lack grappling limbs, like dogs, a higher bite force can probably help maintain a better grip on prey/opponents.
How powerful is a jaguar's bite compared to a similar sized lion/tiger/leopard? From what I remember, jaguars pull of skull bites far more regularly than their cousins, which is certainly advantageous in a fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Nov 1, 2015 7:27:00 GMT 5
This is probably something I should have stated before but just because an animal's bite could break a bone doesn't mean that it will. Animals aren't stationary objects, depending on the angle, bones and limbs can become more or less resistant to damage. For example, if we were to neatly place a leg bone in a hyena's and wolf's jaw I'm sure both animals could break it. But if they were both to bite a leg while in less than ideal positions, the hyena's higher bite force is probably going to have a far better chance at inflicting meaningful damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 1, 2015 8:31:18 GMT 5
^I think that may be a good point, although I'm not sure if the specific example you gave is entirely accurate (hyenas may be more adapted for durophagy than wolves, but that's really more of a feeding implement than a combat tool for hyenas).
|
|
full
Junior Member
Posts: 104 
|
Post by full on Nov 1, 2015 21:23:33 GMT 5
I wouldn't say so at all.
Obviously biteforce isn't the be all and end all of interspecific conflit, there are other factors which certinaly matter more in a fight, manevarability,obtaining a favorable hold early on, the physical strength of the two combatants, but having the capability to inflict more damage with your bite than your opponent can inflict on you, even just the potential to do so is an advantadge.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 1, 2015 22:49:24 GMT 5
The problem is that bite force actually has very limited value regarding how much damage your bite can inflict.
It’s not such a problem if you compare close relatives with very similar anatomy (e.g. extant canids or felids among each other), but it’s terribly un-informative on a wider scope, or between animals with vastly different specializations.
Among carnivorans, stronger bite force seems to be correlated with larger prey, and in all probability with a more damaging bite. But the reverse is probably the case in other animals, e.g. elasmobranchs, where stronger bite forces tend to be either indicative of narrow gripping teeth and a diet mostly composed of "fish", or plausibly flat crushing teeth and a diet composed of mollusks and crustaceans.
–––References:
Huber, D.R., Claes, J.M., Mallefet, J., Herrel, A., 2009. Is extreme bite performance associated with extreme morphologies in sharks? Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 82, 20–28. doi:10.1086/588177
Kolmann, M.A., Huber, D.R., Motta, P.J., Grubbs, R.D., 2015. Feeding biomechanics of the cownose ray, Rhinoptera bonasus, over ontogeny. J. Anat. 227, 341–351. doi:10.1111/joa.12342
|
|
