+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Nature & Conservation (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-nature-conservation)
+--- Forum: Research, Discoveries & Articles (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-research-discoveries-articles)
+--- Thread: Predator Bite Force (/topic-predator-bite-force)
Predator Bite Force - brotherbear - 12-06-2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/223020996/Bite-Forces-Canine-Strength-and-Skull-Allometry-in-Carnivores
RE: Predator Bite Force - Spalea - 12-06-2018
@
About #1: Do I dream ? But in your final table, the lion exemplary is always ahead of the tiger exemplary.
By making a copy/paste of the respectives numbers:
M. masseter :
Panthera leo:
Area: 12137.2 Force: 4490.8
Panthera tigris:
Area: 7968.1 Force: 2948.2
M. temporalis:
Panthera leo
Area: 13833.2 Force: 5118.3
Panthera tigris
Area:16345.5 Force: 6047.8
Bite force at:
Carnassial:
Panthera leo: 3405.4
Panthera tigris: 3007.2
Canine:
Panthera leo: 2152.3
Panthera tigris: 1859.3
Just saying... Perhaps a big lion and a small tiger.
RE: Predator Bite Force - Pckts - 12-06-2018
(12-06-2018, 06:04 AM)Spalea Wrote: @brotherbear:
About #1: Do I dream ? But in your final table, the lion exemplary is always ahead of the tiger exemplary.
By making a copy/paste of the respectives numbers:
M. masseter :
Panthera leo:
Area: 12137.2 Force: 4490.8
Panthera tigris:
Area: 7968.1 Force: 2948.2
M. temporalis:
Panthera leo
Area: 13833.2 Force: 5118.3
Panthera tigris
Area:16345.5 Force: 6047.8
Bite force at:
Carnassial:
Panthera leo: 3405.4
Panthera tigris: 3007.2
Canine:
Panthera leo: 2152.3
Panthera tigris: 1859.3
Just saying... Perhaps a big lion and a small tiger.
From taking a quick scan of the study I did notice the lion skull used was 57mm or nearly 2.2" larger.
The Total skull length for the lion is slightly over 14", that is a normal skull length for a Male lion while the Tiger skull is under 12", that would be a small Male skull or maybe a female's skull.
RE: Predator Bite Force - brotherbear - 12-06-2018
I often discover information that I don't really understand ( from same site ): https://www.scribd.com/document/223020996/Bite-Forces-Canine-Strength-and-Skull-Allometry-in-Carnivores
I wish to know how the predators stack-up against each other in terms of bite force.
144 P. C
HRISTIANSEN AND
J. S. A
DOLFSSEN
Table 7.
Muscle cross sectional areas of the main jaw adductors and bite force estimation for the included carnivores. All cross-sectionalareas are given as mm
2
, and all bite force values as Newtons. All areas and forces are for one side of the skull only
M. masseter M. temporalis
Bite force atSpecimen Area Force Area Force Carnassial Canine
Ailurus fulgens
1038.1 384.1 1375.2 508.8 335.9 225.7
Mustelidae
Meles meles
973.2 360.1 2521.0 932.8 255.2 184.2
Taxidea taxus
1129.4 417.9 1592.9 589.4 322.8 217.9
Gulo gulo
1106.8 409.5 2100.6 777.7 408.3 254.3Procyonidae
Nasua nasua
481.6 178.2 882.3 326.4 87.1 53.2
Procyon cancrivorus
1022.4 378.3 2129.3 787.9 267.5 180.8
Procyon lotor
797.8 295.2 881.2 326.1 176.4 119.5
Ursidae
Tremarctos ornatus
3588.5 1327.8 7187.3 2659.3 1536.8 1197.2
Ursus malayanus
4995.1 1848.2 8116.1 3003.0 1441.7 1131.5
Ursus ursinus
3168.1 1172.2 5632.8 2084.1 708.9 550.4
Ursus americanus
3858.6 1427.7 9684.7 3583.3 1174.1 869.9
Ursus thibetanus
3534.3 1307.7 8192.4 3031.2 819.8 607.4
Ursus arctos
4974.3 1840.5 12164.1 4500.7 1417.6 1068.6
Ursus maritimus
7558.4 2796.6 16859.9 6238.2 2403.9 1730.1
Canidae
Nyctereutes procynoides
564.3 208.8 880.4 325.8 108.9 74.8
Otocyon megalotis
492.1 182.1 2478.1 176.9 86.6 59.4
Fennecus zerda
257.3 95.2 226.2 83.7 55.8 32.5
Alopex lagopus
707.1 261.6 1102.9 408.1 203.7 120.1
Vulpes vulpes
957.9 354.4 1535.3 568.0 298.4 170.3
Lycaon pictus
2297.2 850.0 4905.9 1815.2 854.0 550.5
Speothos venaticus
847.4 313.5 1035.2 383.0 272.0 170.1
Chrysocyon brachyurus
2817.5 1042.5 3977.7 1471.8 725.3 435.6
Cuon alpinus
1209.2 447.4 2735.6 1012.2 379.0 237.0
Canis lupus
3940.6 1458.0 5097.2 1886.0 1262.3 743.0
Cerdocyon thous
834.7 308.8 1109.0 410.3 182.7 113.3
Dusicyon gymnocerus
695.0 257.2 1269.2 469.6 205.4 120.1
Lycalopex vetulus
539.7 199.7 916.6 339.1 130.5 86.0
Viverridae
Nandinia binotata
215.9 79.9 400.9 148.3 54.1 38.0
Arctictis binturong
1492.9 552.4 2181.7 807.2 356.7 256.7
Genetta genetta
310.4 114.8 617.6 228.5 88.4 50.0
Civettictis civetta
511.4 189.2 1059.6 392.1 148.4 104.7
Viverricula indica
293.4 108.5 435.5 161.1 75.5 44.0
Hyaenidae
Crocuta crocuta
3735.0 1381.9 8183.4 3027.9 1421.6 782.7
Hyaena hyaena
2745.4 1015.8 5890.0 2179.3 1041.5 576.5
Hyaena brunnea
2743.9 1015.2 7167.6 2652.0 1222.8 656.2
Felidae
Neofelis nebulosa
1628.0 602.4 3362.0 1244.0 587.8 337.3
Panthera uncia
2071.1 766.3 6957.1 2574.1 884.8 559.2
Panthera pardus
2528.0 935.4 7917.3 2929.4 1376.8 841.5
Panthera leo
12137.2 4490.8 13833.2 5118.3 3405.4 2152.3
Panthera tigris
7968.1 2948.2 16345.5 6047.8 3007.2 1859.3
Panthera onca
2521.3 932.9 8909.0 3296.3 1253.6 765.9
Leopardus pardalis
824.2 305.0 2142.5 792.7 256.9 164.8
Leopardus wiedii
447.8 165.7 977.4 361.6 112.6 73.5
Leopardus tigrinus
333.3 123.3 573.3 212.1 110.4 72.4
Leopardus geoffroyi
584.6 216.3 1151.4 426.0 180.8 118.3
Lynx lynx
1274.7 471.6 2623.9 970.9 454.9 286.4
Acinonyx jubatus
2584.4 956.2 3858.2 1427.5 635.1 434.6
Puma concolor
2073.4 767.1 5450.7 2016.8 905.6 584.3
Herpailurus yagouaroundi
449.7 166.4 700.4 259.2 104.6 66.1
Pardofelis marmorata
558.5 206.6 802.3 296.9 151.4 96.5
Felis chaus
703.2 260.2 2149.0 795.1 294.6 183.4
Ictailurus planiceps
543.9 201.3 1045.5 386.8 172.4 106.2
Prionailurus bengalensis
412.7 152.7 951.6 352.1 93.7 58.5
Leptailurus serval
704.7 260.7 1822.3 674.2 223.2 151.4
Caracal caracal
853.0 315.6 2338.0 865.1 203.8 136.4
Profelis aurata
1052.5 389.4 2158.9 798.8 281.5 185.2
RE: Predator Bite Force - Pckts - 12-06-2018
Another:
Comparative bite forces and canine bending strength in feline and sabretooth felids: implications for predatory ecology
PER CHRISTIANSEN
https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/151/2/423/2630862
RESULTS
The average values for the extant felids are shown in Table 1, and the sabrecat values are shown in Table 2. The tiger has, as expected, the highest average values, both in terms of bite forces and canine bending strengths, but its bite forces are virtually identical to those of the lion (Table 3). However, the large canines of tigers appear sturdy compared with those of lions, despite being proportionally slightly longer. The jaguar also has sturdy canines, whereas the very long canines of the clouded leopard (N. nebulosa) are proportionally more slender compared with the estimated bite forces (see also below). There is a strong relationship between bite forces at the canines and carnassials and body mass among extant felids (Fig. 2; see eqns 3, 4, above), and both regression slopes are distinctly allometric (P < 0.001).
@
These two are good studies that will help with understanding the muscle and skull functions.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.22518
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932386/
If we're looking for a definitive "bite force" winner then we may never know, a lot of factors come into play that can change the results but regardless you can pretty much assume that a 200kg Panthera will have far more than enough of a bite force to get the job done.
RE: Predator Bite Force - Stripedlion2 - 08-07-2020
So does the leopard have a stronger bite than the cougar?