New pliosaur bite force study

[Grey]

Yes he means that one. That's the only with that new one that have been made about pliosaurs bite force.

[theropod]

The paper should answer your questions the best possible way as of now: palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/2014Foffa-anatomy.pdf
P. kevani is stronger in the rear but weaker in the front as compared to Kronosaurus.
I tend to favour the MAX-model here (but basically the same applies to both), as its skull is slightly bigger and probably more robust.

Their beam theory modeling resulted in values that closely matched those of Crocodylus niloticus at skull-lenght parity (which is actually fairly impressive), while McHenry stated the skull of Kronosaurus was proportionally weaker than that of a saltie. Since salties and nile crocodiles are similar in skull robusticity, this can serve as a comparison (albeit a tentative one since the croc’s size figures into this. However it agrees with the impression one gets from skull restorations for both.

Who ever suggested a bite force of 150-200kN for Pliosaurus kevani? They did for P. funkei (at time surely believed to be more than a little larger) and I and coherentsheaf once did on P. macromerus, but using regressions for crocodylians that based on in vivo results (which are higher for the various reasons listed in the paper) and using a body mass guesstimate.

[Grey]

I was referring to the documentary about P.X and the scaled estimates at the time indeed.

Isn't there the largest Kronosaurus skull at 2.36 m already ?

[theropod]

I was referring to the skull McHenry modeled, the one that is listed in the paper. Obviously, this all depends on the body and skull size, the bigger the animal, the higher its bite force is.
It’s fairly likely the largest specimens of Kronosaurus would have stronger bites simply due to having larger heads, but I didn’t check.

[Godzillasaurus]

I think in general pliosaurs would have relied much less on gripping and seizing than crocodilians. Their huge skulls and different teeth allow for different strategies.

At least probably not in the same sense. Their teeth were still relatively blunt (they were pointed, but they were at the same time quite thick and spike-like, even though there was an unusual tetrahedron shape in many genus' teeth as opposed to a more typical conical shape) and would have been very effective at killing smaller animals (compared to their own size of course) as opposed to huge animals like leedsichthys. Spike-like teeth tend to be far more efficient at attacking smaller animals, whether they were used as stabbers or crushers. So I also agree with the paper in that, while they would have gone after aquatic vertebrates of moderate size, those said prey items were probably nothing huge.

Well, theoretically, which pliosaur has the most powerful bite and which one has the most resistant skull structure ? Pliosaurus kevani or Kronosaurus ?

Bite-force wise, they were both probably roughly comparable (did the paper ever mention this subject?). Given that they were quite different morphologically (tooth shape in cross-section is one of these differences; kronosaurus had more conical teeth while pliosaurus had tetrahedron-shaped teeth). I would not believe that their bite forces would be THAT different at parity

[Grey]

coherentsheaf theropod

Even if Forrest article is strange, do you think we can consider pliosaurs to have the deadliest bite ever, in absolute or body size realtive term ? Putting apart the upper bite force estimates for C. megalodon.

[theropod]

Dec 4, 2014 11:53:22 GMT 5 Grey said:

coherentsheaf theropod

Even if Forrest article is strange, do you think we can consider pliosaurs to have the deadliest bite ever, in absolute or body size realtive term ? Putting apart the upper bite force estimates for C. megalodon.

Relative to body size, they are among the deadliest, I think we can say that. One can't say "the deadliest" in either relative or absolute term.
They are also still among the most powerful.

[Supercommunist]

Given that pliosaurs were among the most mobile aquatic animals due to their four-flippered biplaun is it possible that pliosaur would have used multiple bites to take out large prey rather than simply grab and hold?

In addition if pliosaurs had a high top speed I wonder if they maybe used a sort of ram biting attack similar to barracudas.

Computational modeling predicted a maximum staticbite force of 73.1 N at the jaw corners for the largestindividual in our study (Table 1). This is lower than thatof many smaller durophagous fishes, several reptiles,and some mammals of similar and even smaller bodysizes that have been measured or modeled (Herrelet al., 2001;Huber et al., 2005). We suggest that themechanical demands of barracuda teeth to slice throughfish flesh do not require substantially high bite forces, asseen in other mechanical methodologies and configura-tions (e.g.,Dunajski, 1980;Sigurgisladottir et al., 1999;Veland and Torrissen, 1999). Generally, barracuda teethhave a cutting edge or piercing tip that is less than1mm2. It is notable that, with regard to the sharpness ofthe canines (area of the tooth tip:0.54 mm2), adynamic bite force of 33 N at the large canine at theend of the lower jaw can theoretically produce apuncturing bite pressure of over 61 MPa. The abilityof the barracuda to section its prey results from acombination of the biomechanical architecture of thejaws, their force generating capacity (e.g.,Westneat,1994, 2003), and the sharpness and shape of the teeth(Frazzetta, 1988;Osborn, 1996;Korioth et al., 1997;Popowics and Fortelius, 1997;Evans and Sanson, 1998,2003;Shergold and Fleck, 2004;Freeman and Lemen,2006). Thus, with its razor sharp teeth, powerful jaws,and fast swimming speed, the barracuda is literallyable to bite its prey items in half during the initialattack; few other fishes possess this unique ram-bitingfeeding ability

www.researchgate.net/publication/5767030_Functional_morphology_of_bite_mechanics_in_the_great_barracuda_Sphyraena_barracuda

[Infinity Blade]

Tbh, I don't understand this study's conclusion that pliosaurids were not suited to take torsional resistance like a crocodile. Looking at Figure 4, dorsoventral, mediolateral, and torsional bending strength in Pliosaurus kevani's snout are all comparable to what we see in the Nile crocodile. And yes, this is when they're corrected for size. The Nile crocodile, of course, can take shaking and twisting stress to its snout just fine. It should have no problem just biting and then shaking and twisting.

And before anyone asks "What if the Nile croc specimen in Foffa's study was a juvenile with a gracile snout?", it wasn't. The Nile croc specimen is RVC AN1, and I found some more info about it from a non-peer reviewed study it was used in (link->). This specimen is a 501 mm skull (so by no means a small juvenile) and Figure 10 shows that it indeed has a robust snout typical of an adult Nile crocodile. And Pliosaurus' snout was as proportionately strong as that croc's.

[Supercommunist]

Guess we could maybe chalk it up to overly conservative estimates like allosaurus, carnotaurus, and dilophosaurus?

[Infinity Blade]

More like overly conservative conclusions. Kind of like when one author found that ornithosuchids had powerful but slow bites, and concluded they were scavengers.