Panthera tigris soloensis

Feb 3 2012, 12:32 PM

Barbourofelis fricki vs Kodiak Bear or Grizzly?

SameerPrehistorica

Feb 4 2012, 12:37 AM

Kodiak bear wins with ease....
Kodiak bear will body slam Barbourofelis multiple times
Kodiak bear weighs 1000 to 1500 pounds..Here it is mentioned as 360 kg only.

populator135

Feb 4 2012, 02:37 AM

How similar was Barbourofelis to cats (locomotion, claws, agility, explosiveness) ? The Barbourofelis weighed up too 400 kg (880 lbs) which would put it in the bear's weight range. However, if it did not possess feline qualities to counter the size advantage, I don't see it winning very often. I will not vote untill someone can give me an answer.

Reddhole

Jan 11 2012, 07:55 AM

From Reddhole :

Barbourofelis fricki may have had stronger forelimbs and been a better grappler than smilodon fatalis based on the study below:

Source: Therrien, "Feeding Behavior and Bite Force of Saberotoothed Predators", Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society: 2005, 145: P 393-426

As was the case for dirk-toothed nimravids, the
Zx/Zy canine values of barbourofelids are significantly
higher than those of scimitar-toothed nimravids,
suggesting that the dirk-toothed barbourofelids could
more efficiently immobilize their prey. Anyonge (1996)
included barbourofelids in his study of extinct predator
locomotor behaviour and obtained enlightening
results. By comparing the brachial index (maximum
length of the radius/maximum length of the humerus)
and crural index (maximum length of the tibia/maximum
length of the femur) of extinct predators to those
of modern carnivores, Anyonge (1996: fig. 3) discovered
that while the crural index of the leopard-sized
B. morrisi was similar to that of the lion-sized Smilodon
fatalis, ambush predators and ambulators (i.e.
bears), its brachial index was lower than that of the
machairodont and ambush predators, being closer to
the index of ambulators. Because lower intralimb indices
(shorter distal element relative to proximal element)
indicate a greater power output at the limb
extremity, due to a shorter out-lever arm (Hildebrand
et al., 1985; Hildebrand, 1995), Anyonge’s (1996)
results suggest that the forelimbs of the small barbourofelid
had the same biomechanical advantage or
leverage as those of the larger S. fatalis while its hindlimbs
were biomechanically capable of generating a
relatively greater force. Similarly, Baskin (in press)
calculated brachial and crural indices for B. loveorum
(BI = 0.72, CI = 0.75) and B. fricki (BI = 0.72,
CI = 0.65) and discovered that they are even smaller
than those of S. fatalis (BI = 0.82, CI = 0.84). These
results suggest that the power output of the limbs of
barbourofelids may have been greater than in
S. fatalis! Therefore, the dirk-toothed barbourofelids
could have easily subdued prey with their powerful
forelimbs, thus limiting torsional stresses induced by
struggling prey, prior to delivering a powerful canine
bite to rapidly kill it.[/size]

Reddhole

Jan 11 2012, 07:36 AM

Barbourofelis fricki was likely much heavier than any extant cat. Extinct animals are often described as "lion-sized" or something similar based off of limb or body lengths, but robustly built animals like Barbourofelis weigh much more given the same limb or body lengths.

Below are humerus lengths and widths of Barbourofelis loverum, a smaller relative of Barbourofelis fricki, and living lions. The lion sample is based off of a roughly equal amount of males and females while the Barbourofelis loverum sample is based off a mix of males and females (its difficult to determine the sex of extinct species with limited remains available). Barbourofelis's humerus averages 270.5 mm x 37.7 mm (anterioposterior diameter at midshaft) while the extant lion averages 285.6 mm x 36.5 mm. Given that limb width is a better estimate of body mass, this indicates that Brbourfelis loverum weighed more than extant lions (assuming the samples are of similar types of individuals).






Barbourofelis fricki was much larger than Barbourofelis loverum. The following study by Francois Therrien on mandiable or lower jaw strength gives lower jaw dimensions of various species.



Barbourofelis fricki's lower jaw is 24.31 cm while Barbouofelis loverum's lower jaw is 17.6 cm. If we assume lower jaw length scales to body mass like most body dimensions, we can take the cube of the size difference between the two species to roughly estimate Barbourofelis fricki's weight. Barbouofelis fricki's lower jaw is 1.38 (24.31/17.6) times the size of Barbourofelis loverum's lower jaw, and it should weigh 2.64 [(1.38)^3] times as much as Barbourofelis loverum. If we assume Barbourofelis loverum weighs roughly the same as the the average of male and female lions (say 340 lbs.), then Barbourofelis fricki would weigh 898 lbs. (2.64*340 lbs.). Alternatively, we can do the same calculation relative to Smilodon populator from the same chart. Barbourofelis fricki's lower jaw is 1.09 times larger than Smilodon populator's lower jaw, which equaltes to it weighing 1.3 times as much. The average weight from Per Christiansen's body mass estimates for Smilodon populator are 290 KG or 638 lbs. If we multiply 1.3 times 638 lbs. Barbourofelis fricki's body mass is 829 lbs.

Either way Barbourofelis looks like it was a huge animal.

yigit05

Oct 2 2012, 12:19 AM

barbourofelis dog teeth,more muscular
kodiak bear win size avantage,stronger bite,paws,weight