There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
Perhaps I'm quite wrong, but to be fair we have to do a distinction between terrestrial and aquatic animals. The latter don't have any problem linked to the weight, they are carryed by the water. Thus they can enjoy much more muscle devoted to other modalities than the locomotion. For example to the bite capacities. I think.
Aquatic herbivor and predator will be always greater and bigger than the terrestrial predators and by far. Their physical abilities will be always more amazing.
From the study: Bite Force Estimation and the Fiber Architecture of Felid Masticatory Muscles:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The study didn't include the lion or cougar, but based on the estimations gathered the clouded leopard and jaguar come in first place in regards to BF in proportion to their mass, not surprisingly the tiger possess the strongest bite in the absolutes, capable of yielding the highest pressure at both the canines and molars.
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"
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"
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.
From the study above it's very interesting to see the clouded leopard in the first position regarding BRQ at the carnisial, which corroborates the previous study I posted, with jaguar and tiger barely behid. But let's not exclude the large felines from the comparisons with the pantherines (e.g. the cheetah and cougar), as the cougar is tied with the lion at fourth place with a BFQ of 118, followed by the cheetah in 5th place qith 110 BFQ, then comes the leopard at 100 BFQ.
This highlights the major differences on skull morphology that different felids have depending on their lifestyle and prey selection. Leopards having very long skulls but narrow zygomatic arches, and jaguars, clouded leopards and to an extent cougars, having wider skulls that can produce a stronger bite force. I'm curious as to how P. uncia would factor into this ranking since their skull morphology seems to favor a more wider and narrower build, similar to the cougar.
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"
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.
This is also interesting study, from posting #75
This one puts tigers and lions also close to each others. And then again this also has both leopards and pumas and again a close call.
TABLE 1. Average bite forces at the canine tips (BFca) and carnassial eocone (BFcarn), body mass (BM), bite force quotients at the canine tip (BFQca) and carnassial eccone (BFQcarn), and dietary category (D) in 151 species of carnivores.
There are some other studies, but the big picture is always quite same. Then again why wouldn´t it be, these are all big cats and quite similar "body plan" and way to hunt overall.
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"
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.
This is also interesting study, from posting #75
This one puts tigers and lions also close to each others. And then again this also has both leopards and pumas and again a close call.
TABLE 1. Average bite forces at the canine tips (BFca) and carnassial eocone (BFcarn), body mass (BM), bite force quotients at the canine tip (BFQca) and carnassial eccone (BFQcarn), and dietary category (D) in 151 species of carnivores.
There are some other studies, but the big picture is always quite same. Then again why wouldn´t it be, these are all big cats and quite similar "body plan" and way to hunt overall.
This study likely isn't as accurate per unit skull length as it uses literature weights. It's quite unlikely the specimen measured in this study had the literature weight it was assigned. Wroe et al. takes the actual specimen's measurement into account to assign a weight, likely giving a more accurate BFQ. Unfortunately the Christiansen and Wroe study don't seem to have skull length of the actual specimens. The Wroe et al. study is also still likely off as it used van Valkenburgh estimated weights rather than actual weights of the specimens, but not as off as the Christiansen and Wroe study that did not attempt to account for the actual mass of the specimen at all.
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"
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.
This is also interesting study, from posting #75
This one puts tigers and lions also close to each others. And then again this also has both leopards and pumas and again a close call.
TABLE 1. Average bite forces at the canine tips (BFca) and carnassial eocone (BFcarn), body mass (BM), bite force quotients at the canine tip (BFQca) and carnassial eccone (BFQcarn), and dietary category (D) in 151 species of carnivores.
There are some other studies, but the big picture is always quite same. Then again why wouldn´t it be, these are all big cats and quite similar "body plan" and way to hunt overall.
This study likely isn't as accurate per unit skull length as it uses literature weights. It's quite unlikely the specimen measured in this study had the literature weight it was assigned. Wroe et al. takes the actual specimen's measurement into account to assign a weight, likely giving a more accurate BFQ. Unfortunately the Christiansen and Wroe study don't seem to have skull length of the actual specimens. The Wroe et al. study is also still likely off as it used van Valkenburgh estimated weights rather than actual weights of the specimens, but not as off as the Christiansen and Wroe study that did not attempt to account for the actual mass of the specimen at all.
These studies are interesting and same time quite odd in some details. Still all actual studies give similar kind overall results with some differences. I see it good to discuss time to time since many newspaper articles use quite odd figures and sources often very questionable. When comparing similar sized big cats differences tend to be minor, not major. I see jaguar as only clear exception, it has very robust head in comparison with any other big cat, others are quite similar even though tigers and lions have a bit difference.
04-23-2021, 12:56 AM( This post was last modified: 04-23-2021, 08:48 AM by Balam )
I'm seeing people constantly misrepresenting what BFQ means, alluding that the well-established and scientifically agreed-upon notion that jaguars have the strongest bite force among the big cats p4p is a "myth". People are using Wroe's second 2007 paper on bite force equations discussed here before: BITE FORCES AND EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATIONS TO FEEDINGECOLOGY IN CARNIVORES, and completely misrepresenting what the data means and the nuance that comes with it.
As was pointed out here before, Wroe's 2007 paper did NOT use any proper estimation model to gauge the body mass of the specimens utilized for his table based on their skulls, he used literature weights that may or may have not been the accurate body mass of the animals involved in this study during their lives:
*This image is copyright of its original author
In the case of jaguars, the body mass assumed for their calculations was 95.5 kg, and the BFQ was one of the lowest among the pantherines when factoring for the biteforce assumed in Newtons, despite the fact that jaguar skull anatomy is specialized in areas that are crucial to eject large amounts of pressure when biting, especially at the carnassials as I'll show in a second:
*This image is copyright of its original author
We actually have more data on similar calculations for the estimated bite force in jaguars, but this time divided by population which would offer us a better and more detailed look. From the study: Bite force and jaw stress in the jaguar (Panthera onca) during predation of the peccaries (Artiodactyla: Tayassuidae) by fracture of its skulls, by Del Moral et al. (2011).
Abstract:
One of the most effective ways of the jaguar’s predation (Panthera onca) is the application of bite force at the neurocranium of peccaries, one of its main natural preys, causing highly compressive stress that becomes fracture with its back a quick killing. In the present study were analyzed by the method of dry skull, 15 adult jaguar’s skulls moreover completing craniometrical measures with reported data in the literature belonging to different subspecies or phenotypes of this species’ distributional range, to obtain its maximum bite’s force canines and carnassials moreover of the cutting efforts and maximum flexor moments along the jaw. The resolution of these variables in a hiperestaticity structure is achieved through the Moment Distribution Method by Cross. After correlated the maximum bite forces of the jaguar and its action in the cross section of the neurocranium of Pecari tajacu, Tayassu pecari and Catagonus wagneri by Cremona method to obtain the internal stress for before skull fracture. It was found that jaguar’s maximum canine bite force is of 681.56 Newton and in the carnassials line is still 3 times most compressive. These forces are sufficiently high to cause fracture of a rigid structure as is the neurocranium’s triangular section of the peccaries. Moreover the jaguar’s robust canines resist the bending forces applied by struggling prey and a wider muzzle helps to stabilize grip and distribute bite forces more evenly during the killing bite.
*This image is copyright of its original author
If we compare the above table which divides jaguars by populations and just like Wroe use literature weight to infer their body mass to biteforce correlation in Newtons, we find out that the strength in the bite of jaguars at the carnassials in this comprehensive study is significantly greater than the value deducted by Wroe in his 2007 paper.
Wroe calculated a BF of 1361.2 at the carnassials for a jaguar with a (literature average) body mass of 95.5 kg, in contrast, if we use Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi's average of 99.5 kg for the nominal population of Pantanal jaguars (P. onca palustris), we see that the discrepancy in biteforce is major despite the minuscule difference in average weight: 2360,96 vs 1361,2. This is in fact higher than both the lion and tiger's BF calculations at the carnassials according to Wroe's study as well.
The discrepancy grows even larger when we factor in the bite force of the jaguars from northeastern Mexico (P. onca veraecrucis) who have a body mass that seldomly surpasses 60 kg, and where we can assume an average of 55 kg per literature data as well. The bite force at the carnassials for this population was 2320, nearly as strong as those from the Pantanal and once again stronger than lions and tigers and significantly greater than that of leopards, who for Wroe's study had a similar assumed body mass of 55 kg and BFcarn of 964.4. Meaning that at similar assumed body masses, the jaguar had a BFcarn more than twice as strong compared to the leopard.
The only area where Del Moran and Wroe data aligns is in the BFca, which is to be expected as the jaguar's short rostrum and wide zygomatic arches would transfer most of the biting pressure to the back of the skull rather than the front. Other than that, the bite forces of jaguars significantly surpass that of other big cats on a p4p and often times absolute basis. The myth that they have the weakest bite force among the pantherines which some fanboys on other sites are spreading can end right now.
The following 1 user Likes Balam's post:1 user Likes Balam's post • peter
04-28-2022, 03:38 PM( This post was last modified: 05-05-2022, 04:01 PM by LonePredator )
(04-23-2021, 12:56 AM)Balam Wrote: I'm seeing people constantly misrepresenting what BFQ means, alluding that the well-established and scientifically agreed-upon notion that jaguars have the strongest bite force among the big cats p4p is a "myth". People are using Wroe's second 2007 paper on bite force equations discussed here before: BITE FORCES AND EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATIONS TO FEEDINGECOLOGY IN CARNIVORES, and completely misrepresenting what the data means and the nuance that comes with it.
As was pointed out here before, Wroe's 2007 paper did NOT use any proper estimation model to gauge the body mass of the specimens utilized for his table based on their skulls, he used literature weights that may or may have not been the accurate body mass of the animals involved in this study during their lives:
*This image is copyright of its original author
In the case of jaguars, the body mass assumed for their calculations was 95.5 kg, and the BFQ was one of the lowest among the pantherines when factoring for the biteforce assumed in Newtons, despite the fact that jaguar skull anatomy is specialized in areas that are crucial to eject large amounts of pressure when biting, especially at the carnassials as I'll show in a second:
*This image is copyright of its original author
We actually have more data on similar calculations for the estimated bite force in jaguars, but this time divided by population which would offer us a better and more detailed look. From the study: Bite force and jaw stress in the jaguar (Panthera onca) during predation of the peccaries (Artiodactyla: Tayassuidae) by fracture of its skulls, by Del Moral et al. (2011).
Abstract:
One of the most effective ways of the jaguar’s predation (Panthera onca) is the application of bite force at the neurocranium of peccaries, one of its main natural preys, causing highly compressive stress that becomes fracture with its back a quick killing. In the present study were analyzed by the method of dry skull, 15 adult jaguar’s skulls moreover completing craniometrical measures with reported data in the literature belonging to different subspecies or phenotypes of this species’ distributional range, to obtain its maximum bite’s force canines and carnassials moreover of the cutting efforts and maximum flexor moments along the jaw. The resolution of these variables in a hiperestaticity structure is achieved through the Moment Distribution Method by Cross. After correlated the maximum bite forces of the jaguar and its action in the cross section of the neurocranium of Pecari tajacu, Tayassu pecari and Catagonus wagneri by Cremona method to obtain the internal stress for before skull fracture. It was found that jaguar’s maximum canine bite force is of 681.56 Newton and in the carnassials line is still 3 times most compressive. These forces are sufficiently high to cause fracture of a rigid structure as is the neurocranium’s triangular section of the peccaries. Moreover the jaguar’s robust canines resist the bending forces applied by struggling prey and a wider muzzle helps to stabilize grip and distribute bite forces more evenly during the killing bite.
*This image is copyright of its original author
If we compare the above table which divides jaguars by populations and just like Wroe use literature weight to infer their body mass to biteforce correlation in Newtons, we find out that the strength in the bite of jaguars at the carnassials in this comprehensive study is significantly greater than the value deducted by Wroe in his 2007 paper.
Wroe calculated a BF of 1361.2 at the carnassials for a jaguar with a (literature average) body mass of 95.5 kg, in contrast, if we use Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi's average of 99.5 kg for the nominal population of Pantanal jaguars (P. onca palustris), we see that the discrepancy in biteforce is major despite the minuscule difference in average weight: 2360,96 vs 1361,2. This is in fact higher than both the lion and tiger's BF calculations at the carnassials according to Wroe's study as well.
The discrepancy grows even larger when we factor in the bite force of the jaguars from northeastern Mexico (P. onca veraecrucis) who have a body mass that seldomly surpasses 60 kg, and where we can assume an average of 55 kg per literature data as well. The bite force at the carnassials for this population was 2320, nearly as strong as those from the Pantanal and once again stronger than lions and tigers and significantly greater than that of leopards, who for Wroe's study had a similar assumed body mass of 55 kg and BFcarn of 964.4. Meaning that at similar assumed body masses, the jaguar had a BFcarn more than twice as strong compared to the leopard.
The only area where Del Moran and Wroe data aligns is in the BFca, which is to be expected as the jaguar's short rostrum and wide zygomatic arches would transfer most of the biting pressure to the back of the skull rather than the front. Other than that, the bite forces of jaguars significantly surpass that of other big cats on a p4p and often times absolute basis. The myth that they have the weakest bite force among the pantherines which some fanboys on other sites are spreading can end right now.
I have seen time and time again that you are the biggest fanboy and you are the most biased Jaguar fan of all while you only have hate for Tigers and Leopards.
Especially on reddit where you always undermine Tigers and you always praise Jaguars to such an extreme level that it clearly shows how much of a fanboy you are.
Especially when you made a post about Tigers, Black Bears and Brown Bears marking the same tree and there was no need for comparison or competition but you still said male Brown Bears always completely dominate Tigers even though this is false.
Once you also even said the following: “Jaguars have killed black caimans. Unlike tigers who never mess with mugger crocs of similar size” That is literally what you said and I quoted you exactly word by word. You said that even though it’s a ridiculous thing to say which is enough to show how credible you really are!
This very clearly shows you are the biggest biased fanboy and you always undermine Tigers (and Leopards even more) and then exaggerate the feats of Jaguars even though it is foolish to make such absolute comparisons between Tigers and Jaguars since there is such a huge difference between the two but you still do it over and over again.
(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.
04-28-2022, 06:33 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 06:37 PM by LonePredator )
(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 so I doubt that would make much difference.
04-28-2022, 06:39 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 06:45 PM by Pckts )
(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 1/2 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 less than 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.
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
