The strongest bites in the animal kingdom

[tigerluver]

(11-28-2020, 08:19 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(08-07-2020, 07:03 PM)Stripedlion2 Wrote: Does anyone have a bite force of a leopard and a cougar.

In this study are bite forces for leopards and cougars too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ossil_taxa


Odd part of this study are body masses used in calculations, but overall it´s in line with other studies. Tigers and lions are on top of big cats with almost equal bites, then come jaguars (strongest bite relative to body mass, but not strongest absolute force) and leopards and cougars in their logical place and close to each others.

What comes to bite forces and big cats overall, it´s quite obvious when looking at these animals and size differences. Tigers and lions have quite similar sized heads overall so it´s no surprise that their bite forces are quite similar, then jaguars have a bit more robust but still clearly smaller head so there is no surprise with it and again leopards and cougars are again one clear step behind. It´s surprising how much discussion there is what comes to bite forces actually. What comes to lions and tigers, one tv-show with sloppy "test" was for some reason shared in many places and even today some people still think, that lions would have in some way weak bite. I can explain it only by it, that many people have lost touch to common sense.

I don´t know how many people have read about this, but when that one test to lion was done for a tv-show, they got that result 691 lbs and even a person on the program says that he has doubts if that bite was a good one (which it obviously wasn´t when watching that clip). They tested later a crocodile bite and got a result which they considered low. For the next season of that tv-show they went to make a new test for crocodile and result was then 2-3 times more than in the first test. For some reason they didn´t go to do new tests for lions. Science? I don´t think so, just entertainment for people for money and one hired biologist shouting "whoa" time to time while disgracing real scientific research done by serious professionals. 

I can imagine that "scientific" conversation: "Hey these two tests were odd, I don´t think that valid... what should we do?"  "We have money and time to retest only one out of these two...?"  "Oh, so what should be done?"   "Flip a coin, this is just a tv-show"

Here's the supplement with some more info.

They used mass to correct for skull size discrepancy I believe.:

"Bite Force Quotient (BFQ). BFQ was derived using the residuals of regression for bite
force and body mass based on our sub-sample of 31 extant carnivores.
BFQ = [CBS / 10^(0.6014 x Log10 BoM + 1.7137)] x 100, r^2 = 0.85."

The body masses were calculated via regression based on skull length. Therefore, really it's just correcting absolute bite force to bite force per unit skull length.

Looking at the table, the jaguar had the stronger bite force for their skull length, followed by the tiger, lion, and leopard. 

Looking at section B in the supplement, the results are unsurprising as they based around the zygoma and generally, jaguars and tigers have the widest skulls. Reply