The strongest bites in the animal kingdom

[Pckts]

(04-28-2022, 06:48 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 06:39 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 06:33 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 06:27 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 01:22 PM)LonePredator Wrote:

(06-27-2017, 01:12 AM)Pckts Wrote: Jaguar's jaw muscles used to generate power a long with their skulls are much smaller which means they aren't able to generate the same power as the big boys, but they do have the highest lb for lb bite force of any big cat.

"Relative to weight, it’s the jaguar. Recent research by Adam Hartstone-Rose and colleagues at the University of South Carolina, who compared the bite forces of nine different cat species, reveals that jaguars have three-quarters the bite force of tigers.
However, given that jaguars are considerably smaller (the body mass of the individual in the study was only half that of the tiger), relatively speaking their bite is stronger.
“If you had to choose, you’d want to be bitten by a jaguar, not a lion or a tiger. But pound for pound, jaguars pack a stronger punch,” says Adam. “The strength of the jaguar’s bite is due to the arrangement of its jaw muscles, which, relative to weight, are slightly stronger than those of other cats. In addition – also relative to weight – its jaws are slightly shorter, which increases the leverage for biting.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...22518/full

This is just theory though. When you look at it from a practical perspective, things are very different.

For example, as you said that Jaguars have stronger bites in relation to weight. Jaguar was half the weight but had 3/4th the bite force so that gives the Jaguar a stronger bite for its weight. And you are right. You are totally correct about what you said.

BUT IF you isometrically scale a Jaguar to the size of a Tiger or if you isometrically scale a Tiger to the size of a Jaguar then the Tiger would still have a much stronger bite.

This is because when you scale a Jaguar to the size of a Tiger, it’s volume will increase cubically and since volume is directly proportional to mass, it’s mass would also increase cubically. However, the cross sectional area of the Jaguar‘s muscles would only increase squarely and that is what determines its strength.

Since the mass will increase by an exponent of 3 but the cross sectional area of its muscles will only be increased by an exponent of 2, I make an estimate that the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite than the Jaguar.

The size difference 2/1 = 2. Force produced would be directly proportional to the cross sectional area of the muscles plus the types and the concentration of muscle fibers but since we know nothing about the difference of that in Tigers and Jaguars, we’ll assume the fiber types and their concentration is the same in both Jagurs and Tigers.

Now, 4/3= 1.3333 and when it is squared, that will give you 1.333^2 = 1.7777

1.777/2=0.88. Which means even at same mass, the Jaguar would still have only 88% of the bite force of a Tiger.

At equal weights, the Tiger would have a 12% stronger bite than the Jaguar.

I don’t necessarily agree or disagree. Generally speaking a Jag is going to have a higher scoring skull than a Tiger at similar weights but obviously a Tiger at 110kg is either a young male, female or a small sub species. 
I’ll have to take a look at what skulls I can find to compare and see what they show. Aside from that, the formation of the skulls will also make a difference.

No! That’s not what I am talking about. I meant to say when you ISOMETRICALLY scale a Tiger and a Jaguar to the same size.

Which means the Tiger will not be a young male or small female but a prime male Bengal but just scaled down to that size but keeping all the proportions of an adult male intact. That is what I meant.

The same should be done with the Jaguar as well. In that case, the Tiger would have a stronger bite. As for the skull, the morphology of the skull of the Jaguar would remain the same even if you isometrically scale it to a larger size.

It’s a step that wouldn’t need to be estimated if we were to find 120kg Sumatran skulls for instance. 
On top of that, I don’t know what weight to skull size you’re using for either cat. If you’re saying the Jaguar is 3/4 the size of the Tiger, that would need to be verified. Since most likely unless you’re using a Pantanal skull, the Jaguar is going to be 1/2 the size of the Tiger at best.  Instead I may be able to use verified weights and the corresponding skulls that go with them which will paint a clearer picture.

Once again that is not what I am saying. First of all, this is a hypothetical scenario which means the morphology and body proportions of the Tiger and the Jaguar would be the exact same as it was in that bite force study. Again, this is hypothetical because we know Tigers are much bigger than Jaguars and even Sumatrans are still larger.

And I also did NOT say that Jaguar was 3/4 the size of Tiger. I said the Jaguar’s BITE FORCE is 3/4 of the Tiger’s bite force. And the ratio of the cross sectional area of the muscles would be the same as the ratio of the forces produced by the muscles.

The Tiger to be used should be the same as used in the study. We shouldn’t change it into a Sumatran (doing this will give the Tiger an unfair advantage if we use a Sumatran since Sumatrans have proportionally bigger skulls) but still, we are talking about pound for pound so we should scale the same animals used in the study.

I am assuming the Jaguar to be half the size of the Tiger as that is what this study says. 100kg prime male Jaguar and 200kg male Tiger, both ISOMETRICALLY scaled to the same weight, then the Tiger would still have a 12% stronger bite.

I know, I edited my response but you were probably responding.

A Sumatran even having one of the largest skulls proportionally for Tigers would still present a better comparison between the two since their weights are similar. The Jaguar is the more compact animal between the two and that wouldn’t change if you compared it to a Bengal. On top of that, as the Jaguar grows in weight, it’s body dimensions don’t increase the way a Tiger would, generally  Jaguars pack more mass per sq inch. 

In regards to the study, I don’t pay much attention to alleged weights since they’re generally averages across the board and not necessarily corresponding to the actual weights of the cats used. And even if the weights are accurate, if they’re captive it wouldn’t be a true picture of their wild weights.
I can present actual skulls from 100+kg Jaguars and we can compare them to Sumatran skulls, at this point it is the most accurate option. Reply