WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
|
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
|
  (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. 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. 
@Shadow :
About #318: agree with what you told. If my memory doesn't abuse me, John Varty claimed that lions were unable to crunch a tortoise's shell. We know it's quite wrong, lions can do that as well as tigers do. But if he tested a lion which, perhaps, didn't want to taste the turtle's flesh, then he claims any truth he wants. And they were millions of idiot guys who were going to believe it as a truth. @"Khan85" gived these bite force figures with a 162 kilos-weighed lion and a 177 kilos-weighed tiger. Perhaps it wouldn't be wrong that a more than 200 kilos-weighed lion's and tiger's bite force would be equal and more important, wouldn't be ? I have, initially, accomplished a scientific formation too (master of geology), but too many numbers kill the demonstration. We have to learn distancing ourselves from them and keep a modicum of common sense. To conclude, the biggest felids, tigers and lions, have the most performing bite force. Revolutionary truth isn't it ? As simple as that. I don't want to be content with simple truth with lot of numbers. There is something which is impalpable for lot of "scientific" people: the animal's personality. And I will never doubt that felids have a huge of that. (10-23-2020, 06:36 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Shadow : John Varty is one person, for sure a lot of knowledge about things, but also controversial person who´s motives can be questioned in some things. He can be telling the truth based on his observations what comes to leopard tortoise. But if he has seen one tiger and one lion trying, it´s naturally not the whole truth. Some other tiger and lion in same situation could give opposite result. Not all individuals get right away everything. But in the end it doesn´t matter what Varty say, because other more reliable sources and different video footages show clearly, that even though not all lions get it, some do and have enough bite force to crack that shell. Then again there are always a lot of people who believe many things way too easily and don´t use their own brains too much. It has always been so and looks like to be so in future too. Some of course want to spread misinformation on purpose from different motives, which are who knows what. Some just want to win debetes no matter if right or wrong and some are just too obsessed with something and unable to let it go no matter what. Some men kill their girlfriends if girlfriend wants to break up. I have thought time to time that some animal fanatics seem to be with similar kind of mentality. No matter if right or wrong or uncertain, they refuse even try to think certain things with reason. And strong emotional reactions happen so fast, that if they would be sportscars, acceleration from 0-100 km/h would happen in 0,2 seconds. But maybe that is enough what comes to animal fanatics and unreliable sources. But when you look at figures and weights mentioned now recently. One very simple calculation, everyone can think themselves if it tells something or not. Tiger canines: 1472,1:177,8= 8,28 Lion canines: 1314,7:162,2= 8,11 Tiger carnacial eccone: 2164,7:177,8= 12,17 Lion carnacial eccone: 2023,7:162,2= 12,48 I find it interesting, that when dividing bite force result with weight, tiger has better value at tips of the canines and lion then again at carcacial eccone. Study gives better value in both for a tiger, but this "simple mathematics" calculation would suggest, that in similar weight lion would have stronger bite force at carnacial eccone and tiger at tip of the canines. Something what I wouldn´t find surprising at all. Still this simple calculation also gives a very close call. Since for some reason these studies don´t seem to use similar weights (even when possible in between two species) in their examples I´ve found it interesting to make sometimes this kind of comparisons and then compare it with results given in studies. Especially when different studies give a bit different results. I´ve seen at least one study suggesting, that lion would have stronger bite than a tiger, but it had also some odd looking figures involved. In the end, both are big game hunters able to kill same kind of prey animals. Bite force is just one minor detail overall. Both have obviously enough of it, if not more than enough. It´s a nasty sound to hear how they sometimes break bones of other animals while biting.
@Shadow Well that maths isnt really needed here...
The zoologists who did the study already calculated the BFQ for both Lions and tigers for both positions, at tips and carnacial eocone You may wanna check that out in the table, the difference in BFQs at carnacial eocone is very small (10-23-2020, 07:57 PM)Khan85 Wrote: @Shadow Well that maths isnt really needed here... I wrote it there to open up some thoughts. What you think as needed or not is of course your opinion. I have read that study and several others, you don´t need to worry.
This atleast debunks the 600psi for lions vs 1000psi for tigers, thats what matters the most
(10-23-2020, 08:01 PM)Khan85 Wrote: This atleast debunks the 600psi for lions vs 1000psi for tigers, thats what matters the most I have never taken that 600-700 psi seriously, that test was, as I said earlier, worthless. Then again the study you shared and all other studies I´ve seen put tiger and lion overall to same level. One reason why I showed that simple calculation based on bite force and weight was it, that all studies have a bit different kind of results and as I said, one even gives to the lion better values. For me it´s meaningless which one has stronger bite or not, they have both proved in real incidents that bite force is something both species have a lot. Both kill big prey by suffocating and it demands a strong bite. Unless prey animal is immobilized in some other way so, that it can be eaten alive of course. People who are stuck with that 600-1000 psi nonsense don´t give too good picture about their abilities to search information and think themselves, what is believable and what isn´t. Then again when comparing these two biggest cats one thing often said is, that tigers have a bit shorter snout indicating a bit stronger bite. When thinking it, it sounds logical especially when looking at pressure at the tip of the canines. Then again when looking at carnacial eccone it´s a bit different situation. Anyway since even scientific studies can´t give exactly same results depending who is making the study and how, some speculation happens always. And it´s just ok when it´s not going to totally insane.   TOP: 130 kg Sumatran male Tiger. BOTTOM: 124 kg Pantanal male Jaguar. Not the best angle positions but yet give us a slight idea on their sizes also by comparing to the humans. Since I didn't find a photo of a 130 kg male Jaguar on a similar position of that 130 kg Sumatran male Tiger photo... 124 kg Sombra male Jaguar photo shall take this role. Credits: Onçafari/ICMBio and BKSDA Bengkulu  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Pantanal - Sundarbans
Scaled to skull size  *This image is copyright of its original author
I wanted to show this difference in body build more clearly, as jaguars show an incredible amount of morphological differences depending on the habitat they inhabit. Jaguars from open terrains and savannah ecosystems don't necessarily posses the usual proportions we associate with jaguars, as the "standard" jaguar build appears to be more prevalent in populations that live in more forested and swampy areas.
Savannah jaguars have longer legs and bodies (the body claim can be disputed as we are missing data on body length for jaguars in the Cerrado and Llanos), the proportions seem more akin to what is seen with lions to an extent. This makes sense as the environments and lifestyles they live are more cursorial and require them to walk longer distance and perhaps chase prey items like deer in longer periods. To illustrate this point here we have a young male from the Venezuelan Llanos, and another one from the Bolivian Amazon:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author I've also shared this observation before but haven't had the data to back this up, the tail with jaguars in the Llanos seems longer to me as opposed to those from other areas, and I think the first male above shows this perfectly. If correct that would be yet another trait these jaguars have developed to the more cursorial lifestyle they live. Of course these kinds of differences will be present to different degrees among different individuals, but on general terms I believe they may seem more common in one population over the other. It's hard to believe these two are even the same species with such drastic differences in body promotions, but it only goes to show how adaptable jaguars are to their environments. This was the reason that allowed them to survive the Pleistocene mass extinction. 
I was watching this video and it reminded me of what Alan Turner said in his book "Big Cats and their fossil relatives" that when you strip the fur down snow leopard's have a similar skeletal anatomy to cheetah's. Of course this is the opposite and the cheetah has more fur, but it does somewhat illustrate the point imo.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
Craniological differentiation between European wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris), African wildcats (F. s. lybica) and Asian wildcats (F. s. ornata): implications for their evolution and conservation
Abstract: Intraspecific diversification of the wildcat (Felis silvestris), including the European wildcat (F. s. silvestris), the Asian wildcat (F. s. ornata) and the African wildcat (F. s. lybica), was examined based on 39 cranial morphology variables. The samples of free-ranging cats originated from Britain, Europe, Central Asia and southern Africa, consisting of both nominal wildcat specimens (referred to henceforth as ‘wildcats’) and nominal non-wildcat specimens (‘non-wildcats’) based on museum labels. The skull morphology of ‘wildcats’ from Britain and Europe is clearly different from that of ‘wildcats’ of Central Asia and southern Africa. The latter are characterized especially by their proportionately larger cheek teeth. On the basis of principal component, discriminant function and canonical variate analyses, the skull morphology of British ‘non-wildcats’ is less distinct than is that of British ‘wildcats’ from the skull morphologies of ‘wildcats’ of Central Asia and southern Africa. On the other hand, the skull morphology of southern African ‘non-wildcats’ is as distinct from those of ‘wildcats’ of Britain and Europe as is that of southern African ‘wildcats’. We suggest that the evolution of the modern wildcat probably consisted of at least three different distribution expansions punctuated by two differentiation events: the exodus from Europe during the late Pleistocene, coinciding with the emergence of the steppe wildcat lineage (phenotype of Asian-African wildcat), followed by its rapid range expansion in the Old World. The second differentiation event was the emergence of the domestic cat followed by its subsequent colonization of the entire world with human assistance. Considering the recent evolutionary history of, and morphological divergence in, the wildcat, preventing hybridization between the European wildcat and the domestic cat is a high conservation priority.
20 pages on felid form and function, including how the basic body plan is able to specialise to fulfil different functional and ecological niches.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nob...9780a2.pdf |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |