Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Shadow]

(10-23-2020, 01:59 PM)Spalea Wrote: @"Khan85" : " It can be seen that a Tiger (Panthera tigris ssp.) weighing 177.8kgs had an absolute bite force of 1472.1 N at canine tips and 2164.7 N at carnacial eocone, and Bite Force Quotients as 130.4 and 129.1 respectively.

Compare this to a 162.2kgs Lion (Panthera tigris ssp.), we have 1314.7 N and 2023.7 N and Bite Force Quotients as 123.8 and 128.1 respectively."


Where are the so-called specialists, "at me scratch my balls", who never ceased to claim that lions only have a 670 N bite force while the tiger an exceeding 1000 N bite force ?
I only see that the bite force force difference between tigers and lions is very weak, in order not to say insignificant...

By the way, figures say everything... And its contrary.

All who have seen video footage of the "test" to what that 670 is based on, if honest, can´t take it seriously as a good example of maximum bite force. Lion was young and very cautious and gave only 1-2 hasty bites also releasing test device inside meat right away when people started to pull it. It didn´t even try to resist by biting really hard and pulling back. Just like when I play with my dog, when he is unsure what he needs to do, he release a stick right away if I grab it. But if he is in play mood or notices from me, that now he can put "all in", there is no way for me to get that stick from him by only pulling. I have to tell him to let it go.

So seeing a young and cautious lion letting go, because uncomfortable in the situation with all the people there and then getting some, frankly saying "half ass" so called test result, not convincing in any way. It was nice entertainment, no doubt about it, but science... no, not even close.

Same people tested for instance crocodiles twice, because they had some thoughts, that first test wasn´t good. Second time they got something like 3-4 times higher bite force for crocodile in comparison with first test they made. But with lions they didn´t try again(even though in the video can be heard how one member of the team say that "Who´s to say, that´s  the best bite a lion can give us?"). Maybe no time or money to do things properly. It was a good example of it how misleading some so called documentaries can be, when obvious main target is to entertain people, not to do some serious research. Interesting is also to see how that result 691 lbs is quoted in some places as 650, some say 670 and some even try to put it to 600, even though source is same NatGeo "guessmentary" series in this case. I can´t write documentary just because there is some biologist participating by acting to be super excited every time when seeing an animal doing something they do every day. My guess is, that pay enough money and anyone is willing to go to the tv and act as producers want.

Source criticism is really necessary when looking at tv-programs and what is said in those. NatGeo is a good example how same source can time to time produce good information and time to time something what you could expect to see from yellow press, not from a network trying to look like professional one.

I wrote a little bit more than I thought first, but this lion bite force thing seems to be still alive in some places even though other NatGeo article has later stated, that lions and tigers have approximately same bite force. Still some people seem to try to use that old clearly unreliable figure. Hopefully people who read postings here use some time to learn from scientific sources and from more than one. There are several bite force studies with a bit different results. Still all are in same page in it, that size matters, biggest cats bite stronger than smaller ones and when close in size, also close in bite force. Reply