|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 12, 2015 7:32:02 GMT 5
Ok, that makes sense. So taking those masses you've stated, the leopard, when scaled up to the cheetah's mass, will have a bite force of ~547N at the canines as opposed to the cheetah's ~472N bite.
One question just for my own nefarious purposes curiosity, how massive do you believe the other big cats (eg. the lion, tiger, jaguar) would have actually been in that study?
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 12, 2015 8:13:22 GMT 5
The basal length of that lion skull suggest something about 355mm in condylobasal length (based on photos in Haas et al, 2005) might be the same 203kg specimen used by Christiansen and Harris before, this skull seems rather elongated.
The tiger, the basal length is 289mm, I don't have a reference to estimate the CBL but assuming similar BSL-CBL proportions to the lion the skull will be 307mm, comparable to that of the 145kg tiger used by Christiansen and Harris.
The Jaguar has a BSL of 223mm and a ZW of 186mm, the BSL suggest a CBL (based on drawings in Seymour, 1989) of 235mm, comparable to a 67kg specimen used by Christiansen and Harris, however the ZW is more comparable to the average of males from 4 populations according to Hoogesteijin and Mondolfi (1996), so about 92kg, maybe this specimen was abnormal or captive? the drawings in Seymour (1989) suggest that the ZW of an specimen of this size should be almost 2cm narrower.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 13, 2015 3:17:14 GMT 5
Something else I'm really surprised at and doesn't seem quite right to me.
From this, C. dirus is ~70kg with a canine bite force of ~893N. P. pardus is ~26kg with a canine bite force of ~467N. Scale the latter up to the mass of the former
³√x70/26=1.391153002280322=1.935306675753548*467=~903.7882175769067N
the leopard will apparently end up having a higher bite force than the dire wolf at parity.
Is there something here that's wrong? Because I'm having a rather hard time believing this.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 13, 2015 20:49:13 GMT 5
From this, C. dirus is ~70kg with a canine bite force of ~893N. P. pardus is ~26kg with a canine bite force of ~467N. Are you referring to the table I posted? Because the table I posted has completely different body mass figures for the specimens where the bite force got calculated. The masses are 50.8 kg for C. dirus and 43.1 kg for P. pardus.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 13, 2015 23:56:27 GMT 5
The masses he used are "corrected" ones I made, that C. dirus skull is over 5% larger than average, in fact, the zygomatic width puts it firmly in top 3 of largest C. dirus skulls (comparing with data in Nowak 1979) no way 51kg for it is accurate, likewise the mass of the leopard is way too high for an animal with an skull width 5% below average for females, that weight 30.5kg (based on AfriCats data).
@macronectes Well I suppose that this is one of the problems with the dry skull method of estimating bite force, likewise, biteforce at the canines I suspect would be proportionally lower in a long snouted canid than in a felid, it is also possible that 26kg is slighty too low and their particular specimen has proportionally narrow zygomatic width which seems like a possibility, assuming similar proportions to lions, this leopard would have a CBL of 191mm which is slightly above the "skull length" measurement for the average female from Africat's data (188mm), this will bump the estimate to 32kg if they are supposed to measure the same thing, could they mean greatest length? in that case the skull would be as big as that of an average male and suggest 53kg but then the zygomatic width wold be almost 4cm too narrow which seems excessive.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 14, 2015 0:56:24 GMT 5
Here are my notions regarding canid vs. felid canine bite force at parity (or at least possibly were if I'm completely wrong).
I thought (at least macrophagous) canids would have bitten harder than felids at the canines. I thought their proportionately large heads would allow for strong enough jaw muscles to overcome their longer snouts. Plus, I thought it wouldn't be too hard to believe considering macrophagous canids only have a maw to commit offensive actions while felids can at least grapple with their forelimbs and thus maybe don't need as much bite force. And of course, mechanical advantage wouldn't always equate to proportionate bite force. I don't know if this is naïve or not, but this is just what I assumed.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 14, 2015 3:00:03 GMT 5
Their skulls are proportionately larger (overall), but also disproportionately longer. Given that the wolf is very slightly weaker at the canines, it probably does bite quite a bit harder than the cat at the carnassials, since it’s anterior mechanical advantage is proportionately lower.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 11:55:17 GMT 5
Wouldn't the latter win by default since the former does not exist?
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 22, 2017 8:17:51 GMT 5
Wouldn't the latter win by default since the former does not exist? It does exist, it's just possible it shouldn't be named Raptorex, but rather Tarbosaurus (I might be behind on the paleo news, though; that Raptorex is synonymous with Tarbosaurus may be more certain than I'm currently aware). And Tarbosaurus would turn any terrestrial mammalian carnivore into its own personal soccer ball, certainly including one that it's 63 times heavier than . Speaking of carnivoran bite force, Per Christiansen & Wroe (2007) is two years more recent than the one creature originally cited (although at this point, neither are really new), and can perhaps be thought of as a revision of the earlier study. The grey wolf wound up having one of the proportionately strongest bites at the canines of all the canids in that study, topped only by the dhole and the African wild dog. The only felids (of the 33 species included in the study) that were superior to the grey wolf in this regard were the sand cat, the Pampas cat, and the tiger. Other big game hunting felids like the lion, leopard, cougar, and even the jaguar* were found to have proportionately weaker bites at the canines than the grey wolf, despite their advantages in jaw mechanical advantage (although, they certainly rivaled its proportionate bite force). *This is at odds with a later study, though (Rose et al., 2012), which found that a jaguar had a proportionately (though not absolutely) harder bite at the canines than did the tiger; they actually dissected dead felid specimens and looked at their jaw musculature. The bite forces of both were prodigiously high, even relative to body mass; the jaguar was 100 kilograms and bit with a force of 4938.33 N at the canines while the tiger weighed 200 kilograms and bit with a force of 6901.33 N at the same teeth. If that's actually representative of their in vivo bite forces, imagine how hard extinct predators could have bitten! I wonder if really high bite force estimations for Tyrannosaurus (namely Therrien et al. (2005)) aren't that unreasonable after all.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 21:51:56 GMT 5
Mismatch in favor of Raptorex, it's a juvenile Tarbosaurus and would eat the wolf with 1 bite.
|
|