| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals & the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa; Stephen Wroe, Colin McHenry, Jeffrey Thomason Published 22 March 2005.DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2986 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 15 2016, 01:57 PM (1,048 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jul 15 2016, 01:57 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Journal Reference: Stephen Wroe, Colin McHenry, Jeffrey Thomason Published 22 March 2005. Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals & the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2986 Abstract: We provide the first predictions of bite force (BS) in a wide sample of living and fossil mammalian predators. To compare between taxa, we calculated an estimated bite force quotient (BFQ) as the residual of BS regressed on body mass. Estimated BS adjusted for body mass was higher for marsupials than placentals and the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) had the highest relative BS among extant taxa. The highest overall BS was in two extinct marsupial lions. BFQ in hyaenas were similar to those of related, nonosteophagous taxa challenging the common assumption that osteophagy necessitates extreme jaw muscle forces. High BFQ in living carnivores was associated with greater maximal prey size and hypercarnivory. For fossil taxa anatomically similar to living relatives, BFQ can be directly compared, and high values in the dire wolf (Canis dirus) and thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) suggest that they took relatively large prey. Direct inference may not be appropriate where morphologies depart widely from biomechanical models evident in living predators and must be considered together with evidence from other morphological indicators. Relatively low BFQ values in two extinct carnivores with morphologies not represented among extant species, the sabrecat, Smilodon fatalis, and marsupial sabretooth, Thylacosmilus atrox, support arguments that their killing techniques also differed from extant species and are consistent with ‘canineshear bite’ and ‘stabbing’ models, respectively. Extremely high BFQ in the marsupial lion, Thylacoleo carnifex, indicates that it filled a large-prey hunting niche.
Edited by Taipan, Feb 1 2018, 09:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| ZOANTHROPY | Jul 15 2016, 03:04 PM Post #2 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So pound for pound wat animals would be top 5? |
![]() |
|
| Taipan | Jul 15 2016, 06:06 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Those with the highest BFQ - mainly the predatory marsupials. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Jul 15 2016, 09:06 PM Post #4 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A 295kg lion? Can this be accurate? |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Jul 15 2016, 09:35 PM Post #5 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^Does it seem too high or is it suspicious in another regard? If the former, then aren't the largest lions (and tigers) some amount over 300 kilograms?
Edited by Ausar, Jul 15 2016, 09:36 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Jul 15 2016, 11:07 PM Post #6 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, it seems pretty high. I thought the highest verified weight for a lion was around 260-270kg. I could be wrong, though. |
![]() |
|
| Taipan | Jul 15 2016, 11:35 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
This study (a forerunner to a later more comprehensive study) has already been picked through for anomalies back when it first came out ie. cheetah with a higher BFQ than a leopard and a cougar, and people doing so are missing the point. Rather than getting hung up on percieved errors, the interest lies in the general trends in the figures as they relate to predatory behaviour in terms of killing behaviour and prey size, which appears supported by further studies. Those would include that specialisation of 'sabertoothed' predators, as opposed to the high BFQ big game specialists. Later forelimb studies of predators suggests that the low BFQ big game specialists compensated with greater grappling ability/strength (ie. Smilodon spp.), the high BFQ predators having lesser grappling ability/strength (i.e. Canis dirus). The later study by the same researchers using the same methodologies utilised more samples for each species producing what appear to be more accurate (less anomalies) results. However it only focussed on extant carnivorans, raher than the the range above. Thus it is the one that should be referred to. However the trends in the data still match the findings in this study - a correlation exists between grappling ability/strength and BFQ, best represented by Cougar (BFQ 118) and Wolf (BFQ 127). Here is the later study: http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9333832/1/ |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Paper & PDF Share · Next Topic » |





Bite_club__comparative_bite_force_in_big_biting_mammals___the_prediction_of_predatory_behaviour_in_fossil_taxa.pdf (193.28 KB)





![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)
5:47 PM Jul 11