|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 2, 2015 0:09:44 GMT 5
I guess what your teeth are like (and I guess your habits) determine whether or not your huge bite force is really a big deal in a fight (so I guess this means I agree with VD's last statement?). For example, placodonts bit down hard, but with their flat teeth they certainly wouldn't have been master fighters. But something like a tyrannosaurine is a completely different story; not only is the bite force huge, but there are some large pointed teeth in the jaw that turn said bite force into an exceptionally deadly weapon.
But it seems that some people aren't convinced of a greater bite force's value, even if the latter is the case and no matter how large the discrepancy is, which is what I simply can't bring myself to agree with.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 2, 2015 1:03:41 GMT 5
^It depends on whether you imply that an animal like a tyrannosaur has a deadlier bite than other predators (e.g. another giant theropod) because of its high bite force, or just that it’s bite’s deadliness is due to its bite force.
The latter is of course the case, but bite force doesn’t serve as a good means of comparison because the lethality other animals is not necessarily as dependant on it.
E.g. a great white shark’s bite may just half as strong as a crocodile’s at equal size, and certainly the crocodile’s bite force is what makes its bite so potent, but this isn’t sufficient data to say it is more potent than the shark’s. For that we need to look at both animals, best of all at direct evidence demonstrating the damage done by their bite (or, if unavailable, informed interpretation of how their respective jaw structure and the surrounding bits worked).
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 2, 2015 3:04:42 GMT 5
^It depends on whether you imply that an animal like a tyrannosaur has a deadlier bite than other predators (e.g. another giant theropod) because of its high bite force, or just that it’s bite’s deadliness is due to its bite force.The latter is of course the case, but bite force doesn’t serve as a good means of comparison because the lethality other animals is not necessarily as dependant on it. E.g. a great white shark’s bite may just half as strong as a crocodile’s at equal size, and certainly the crocodile’s bite force is what makes its bite so potent, but this isn’t sufficient data to say it is more potent than the shark’s. For that we need to look at both animals, best of all at direct evidence demonstrating the damage done by their bite (or, if unavailable, informed interpretation of how their respective jaw structure and the surrounding bits worked). Come now, I'm sure you know me well enough to know what my stance is on this matter  . But yes, the bolded is what I was suggesting. My point was that if you have a particularly powerful bite coupled with teeth that are at least pointed at the tip for effective pressure points for penetration (though not really like the "narrow gripping" teeth of the non-macrophagous elasmobranchs you mentioned) then good news, you've got yourself a deadly weapon. Otherwise...not exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 2, 2015 3:17:47 GMT 5
Sure I do, I meant 'you' as in 'one'. And sure, high bite force and a raptorial dentition can make for an extremely potent weapon.
The question, why bring it up as an argument if one doesn't mean to imply it results in a MORE potent bite than it's opponent's (as I mentioned, this is sometimes the case but very far fron being a generally applicable principle). Most people who do certainly don't elaborate on the actual nature of its importance.
Someone stating it is irrelevant may be referring to the irrelevance of the common argument that greater bite force = better bite, in which case that is absolutely legit, and not any purported irrelevance of bite force for the animal's bite.
Perhaps a better wording than to say it is irrelevant would be to say that sharp teeth and high bite force are advantages, but are locked in a payoff and will tend to cancel each other out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 2, 2015 4:17:48 GMT 5
But the people I've discussed with on Carnivora aren't countering the erroneous notion that stronger bite=deadlier bite. They're essentially saying "Damage is damage. It doesn't matter if one bites (significantly) harder than the other even if there isn't anything in it for the other factors that contribute to a bite's potency; a broken bone is a broken bone and the extra force beyond the necessary force to break one is redundant".
You seem like someone who believes that a notable advantage in bite force is a legitimate argument when the two animals lack advantages in every other factor of the jaws department. So do you believe that the premise I stated above is incorrect in some way or do you agree with it?
|
|
full
Junior Member
Posts: 104 
|
Post by full on Nov 2, 2015 4:27:13 GMT 5
But the people I've discussed with on Carnivora aren't countering the erroneous notion that stronger bite=deadlier bite. They're essentially saying "Damage is damage. It doesn't matter if one bites (significantly) harder than the other even if there isn't anything in it for the other factors that contribute to a bite's potency; a broken bone is a broken bone and the extra force beyond the necessary force to break one is redundant". You seem like someone who believes that a notable advantage in bite force is a legitimate argument when the two animals lack advantages in every other factor of the jaws department. So do you believe that the premise I stated above is incorrect in some way or do you agree with it? They are right in a way, a debilitating bite is a debilitating bite regardless of bite force. But as I said previously if your dental morphology allows you to exert a more signifigant force than your opponent then that is an advantadge, a broken bone is indeed a broken bone, but it's more likely you will be the one doing the breaking. But that's only the most rudimentary way of looking at it IMO, various other morphological and behavioural characteristics are more important than who has the stronger jaws. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 2, 2015 4:43:57 GMT 5
My replies are in orange. But the people I've discussed with on Carnivora aren't countering the erroneous notion that stronger bite=deadlier bite. They're essentially saying "Damage is damage. It doesn't matter if one bites (significantly) harder than the other even if there isn't anything in it for the other factors that contribute to a bite's potency; a broken bone is a broken bone and the extra force beyond the necessary force to break one is redundant". You seem like someone who believes that a notable advantage in bite force is a legitimate argument when the two animals lack advantages in every other factor of the jaws department. So do you believe that the premise I stated above is incorrect in some way or do you agree with it? They are right in a way, a debilitating bite is a debilitating bite regardless of bite force. Well, of course, that's common sense. The point is, assuming both animals rely on bite force and not some other thing like slicing teeth, then the more powerful bite would be the more debilitating bite. If that doesn't constitute a considerable advantage, then I don't know what to say.But as I said previously if your dental morphology allows you to exert a more signifigant force than your opponent then that is an advantadge, a broken bone is indeed a broken bone, but it's more likely you will be the one doing the breaking. I agree.But that's only the most rudimentary way of looking at it IMO, various other morphological and behavioural characteristics are more important than who has the stronger jaws. I agree. Bite force is but one thing that could potentially affect a bite's damage output and is no more outcome-deciding than all other factors, generally speaking. |
|
full
Junior Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by full on Nov 2, 2015 4:49:38 GMT 5
My replies are in orange. They are right in a way, a debilitating bite is a debilitating bite regardless of bite force. [Well, of course, that's common sense. The point is, assuming both animals rely on bite force and not some other thing like slicing teeth, then the more powerful bite would be the more debilitating bite. If that doesn't constitute a considerable advantage, then I don't know what to say.]But as I said previously if your dental morphology allows you to exert a more signifigant force than your opponent then that is an advantadge, a broken bone is indeed a broken bone, but it's more likely you will be the one doing the breaking. But that's only the most rudimentary way of looking at it IMO, various other morphological and behavioural characteristics are more important than who has the stronger jaws. I'd have to agree with that assesment too. I consider having a higher bite force than your opponent to be an advantadge in and of itself, and in the case of two combatants who are relying soley on their jaws to restrain and control each other then it would be advantageous if your jaws had the potential for a higher damage output. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Nov 3, 2016 4:16:16 GMT 5
I would say it's largely irrelevant due to the fact the hardest an animal can bite often(if not every) time surpasses the amount of force required to maim or kill another animal. I think arguing one animal would win over the other because it can bite harder -- often times when this becomes a trivial matter -- is on the ridiculous side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Nov 3, 2016 6:20:05 GMT 5
I would say it's largely irrelevant due to the fact the hardest an animal can bite often(if not every) time surpasses the amount of force required to maim or kill another animal. I think arguing one animal would win over the other because it can bite harder -- often times when this becomes a trivial matter -- is on the ridiculous side. I tend to agree with this. |
|
. But yes, the bolded is what I was suggesting.
