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.
04-28-2022, 06:48 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 06:55 PM by LonePredator )
(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.
04-28-2022, 07:02 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 07:04 PM by LonePredator )
@Pckts But regardless, even if you use a 120kg Sumatran and compare it with a 120kg Jaguar then the Sumatran Tiger would have an even more stronger bite (IF the morphology and anatomy of Sumatrans are the same or almost the same as the type of Tiger used in the bite force study) and that is why I’m not willing to use Sumatrans because using Sumatran Tiger would be biased in favour of the Tiger.
04-28-2022, 07:11 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 07:12 PM by 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.
04-28-2022, 07:25 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 08:29 PM by LonePredator )
(04-28-2022, 07:11 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(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 a 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.
No friend, that’s not what I am saying actually. For example, as you said, after a point, Jaguars start to pack more mass per volume but the same would be the case with a Tiger or any other animal because all animals have a ‘normal weight limit’ but when they exceed that limit, they never do it ISOMETRICALLY but rather by getting bulkier or fatter.
I am talking about ISOMETRICALLY scaling the Jaguar to the size of the Tiger used in the study. ISOMETRICALLY.
For example there are humans of 500kg but they never reach that weight ISOMETRICALLY, they reach those weights by getting fatter. But their morphology is completely different from a normal, average human.
I ask you, will a 150kg very fat Jaguar have the same bite force in relation to it’s weight compared to a 110kg normal, average Jaguar? Obviously the 110kg Jaguar will be much stronger ‘pound for pound’ than the fat 150kg one.
Similarly if a Jaguar is heavier than say 140kg, then his morphology will be completely different than a normal Jaguar.
Because both animals have a normal limit. For example, the limit for a Jaguar is perhaps let’s say 125kg. After reaching say 130kg, the Jaguar can only get heavier either by getting bulkier or by packing more bodyfat. The same for Tigers. After about 300kg, a Tiger can only get bigger by either getting bulkier or by getting fatter.
So what you are talking about is bulking up the Jaguar while I am talking about ISOMETRICALLY scaling up the Jaguar. You can also use a 120kg Sumatran but using 120kg Sumatran is different than using an isometrically downscaled 120kg Bengal.
But even then, IF and this is a big if. IF the 120kg Sumatran has the same or almost the same morphology and anatomy as a 220kg Bengal, then the 120kg Sumatran will still have a much higher bite force compared to the 120kg Jaguar.
04-28-2022, 07:41 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 07:43 PM by Pckts )
Because it’s not something I’ve looked into hard, I’m not going to make an absolute claim. But my guess would be that an 80kg Jaguar compared to a 120kg Jaguar will show less of a difference in body length and shoulder height than a 185kg Tiger compared to a 272kg Tiger. Jaguars in general just hold more mass in their frame. They are the most dense cat alive.
The idea that a Jaguar at 150kg will be fat isn’t true, Lopez and Joker, both around 150kg Jaguars are fit cats. There is no way a 110kg Jaguar is producing a comparable bite force to them. Bite force is going to come down to skull size and shape, muscle composition and body mass.
In regards to a sumatran having a higher bite force than a Jaguar at equal weights. I disagree, a Jaguar is going to be shorter in length and height but larger in chest and body girth. Again, it’s coming down to the skull compositions and muscle attachments.
I’ll see what skulls I can find that are comparable tomorrow and we can see how they match up.
04-28-2022, 07:41 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 07:47 PM by LonePredator )
(04-28-2022, 07:11 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(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.
I’m using a mathematical equation to scale up the Tiger. You already know that the term ‘pound for pound’ itself is completely hypothetical. There is no such thing as ‘pound for pound’ in reality, it’s all hypothetical and impractical.
So when you are indeed going to make a ‘pound for pound’ comparison then you shouldn’t try to make it practical and grounded in reality.
Because we are comparing the bite force of a prime male Indian Tiger and a prime male Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar and we say that a Jagur has ‘pound for pound’ stronger bite than the Tiger. This is actually far from reality.
It’s like saying an ant is pound for pound much stronger than a human but if you actually scale an ant upto the size of a human morphologically, then the human would still be much much stronger than the ant.
Do you think a housecat scaled to the size of a Tiger will be as strong as the Tiger? Not even close. In fact, the cat might not even be able to walk on its feet if it has the same morphology as a 5kg housecat but gets isometrically scaled to the size of a 220kg Tiger.
(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.
I’m using a mathematical equation to scale up the Tiger. You already know that the term ‘pound for pound’ itself is completely hypothetical. There is no such thing as ‘pound for pound’ in reality, it’s all hypothetical and impractical.
So when you are indeed going to make a ‘pound for pound’ comparison then you shouldn’t try to make it practical and grounded in reality.
Because we are comparing the bite force of a prime male Indian Tiger and a prime male Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar and we say that a Jagur has ‘pound for pound’ stronger bite than the Tiger. This is actually far from reality.
It’s like saying an ant is pound for pound much stronger than a human but if you actually scale an ant upto the size of a human morphologically, then the human would still be much much stronger than the ant.
Do you think a housecat scaled to the size of a Tiger will be as strong as the Tiger? Not even close. In fact, the cat might not even be able to walk on its feet if it has the same morphology as a 5kg housecat but gets isometrically scaled to the size of a 220kg Tiger.
This isn’t comparing an ant to a human, this is two cats that weigh about the same. Their dimensions are slightly different but both thrive at these similar weights.
04-28-2022, 07:52 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 08:35 PM by LonePredator )
(04-28-2022, 07:41 PM)Pckts Wrote: Because it’s not something I’ve looked into hard, I’m not going to make an absolute claim. But my guess would be that an 80kg Jaguar compared to a 120kg Jaguar will show less of a difference in body length and shoulder height than a 185kg Tiger compared to a 272kg Tiger. Jaguars in general just hold more mass in their frame. They are the most dense cat alive.
The idea that a Jaguar at 150kg will be fat isn’t true, Lopez and Joker, both around 150kg Jaguars are fit cats. There is no way a 110kg Jaguar is producing a comparable bite force to them. Bite force is going to come down to skull size and shape, muscle composition and body mass.
In regards to a sumatran having a higher bite force than a Jaguar at equal weights. I disagree, a Jaguar is going to be shorter in length and height but larger in chest and body girth. Again, it’s coming down to the skull compositions and muscle attachments.
I’ll see what skulls I can find that are comparable tomorrow and we can see how they match up.
If the Jaguar has more chest and belly girth then how is it more dense? When the jaguar has more chest and belly girth then it literally increases his volume which reduced its density. Volume is inversely proportional to density.
You still didn’t understand what I meant. A 150kg Jaguar is stronger than a 120kg Jaguar because it’s denser but. The same with a Tiger. A 280-290kg Tiger can be the same length and height as a 250kg Tiger but it’s denaer and bulkier. That also by getting denser.
But only length and height do NOT determine density. Chest girth also does. And Jaguars may have less shoulder height but have higher belly and chest girth so Jaguars aren’t any more dense than a Tiger.
The chest girth also varies in Tigers, does it not? But that isn’t isometric. I mean isometric. ISOMETRICALLY scaling a Jaguar to the size of a Tiger... ISOMETRICALLY.
04-28-2022, 07:53 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 08:35 PM by LonePredator )
(04-28-2022, 07:51 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 07:41 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 07:11 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(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.
I’m using a mathematical equation to scale up the Tiger. You already know that the term ‘pound for pound’ itself is completely hypothetical. There is no such thing as ‘pound for pound’ in reality, it’s all hypothetical and impractical.
So when you are indeed going to make a ‘pound for pound’ comparison then you shouldn’t try to make it practical and grounded in reality.
Because we are comparing the bite force of a prime male Indian Tiger and a prime male Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar and we say that a Jagur has ‘pound for pound’ stronger bite than the Tiger. This is actually far from reality.
It’s like saying an ant is pound for pound much stronger than a human but if you actually scale an ant upto the size of a human morphologically, then the human would still be much much stronger than the ant.
Do you think a housecat scaled to the size of a Tiger will be as strong as the Tiger? Not even close. In fact, the cat might not even be able to walk on its feet if it has the same morphology as a 5kg housecat but gets isometrically scaled to the size of a 220kg Tiger.
This isn’t comparing an ant to a human, this is two cats that weigh about the same. Their dimensions are slightly different but both thrive at these similar weights.
This isn’t true. A male Bengal Tiger can thrive at 240kg while a Jaguar can NOT. A Jaguar can thrive at 100kg while a male Bengal Tiger can NOT. The only way this is possible is hypothetically scaling them ISOMETRICALLY.
04-28-2022, 08:36 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 08:42 PM by Pckts )
(04-28-2022, 08:10 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts And you said that Jaguars are the most dense cats which is most likely false. Tigers and Jaguars should be nearly equally dense.
Just because Jaguars are proportionally shorter does not mean Jaguars are denser. Jaguars have a proportionally big belly and big chest (in volume)
While Sumatran Tigers have taller and bulkier legs so they have bigger limbs (in volume)
So both are dense but in different places. Never mind, you are free to disagree and I don’t mean any offense to you but I don’t agree with the claim that ‘jaguars are pound for pound strongest’. It is true in theory but practically, that is not how it should work.
You keep saying to Isometrically scale them but you’re not factoring in the differences in their morphology between the two cats. *not proven yet* But I think tigers Grow longer and taller than a Jaguar at equal weights. Jaguars seem to support larger weights with smaller bodies compared to Tigers. No matter how you extrapolate it, a Jaguar at equal weights should generally be a bit shorter in length and height while thicker in chest and abdominal. Neck and limbs are unknown, I certainly won’t put a Tigers forelimb ahead of the Jaguars just yet, I need to see real data on that. Skull size and weight to body size needs to be determined for both before extrapolation as well.
I’ll see what I can find on skull size tomorrow but if you want to look, check the Java Tiger thread on page 4, you’ll see some good skulls to get started then look at Almeidas skulls for comparison.
(04-28-2022, 08:10 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts And you said that Jaguars are the most dense cats which is most likely false. Tigers and Jaguars should be nearly equally dense.
Just because Jaguars are proportionally shorter does not mean Jaguars are denser. Jaguars have a proportionally big belly and big chest (in volume)
While Sumatran Tigers have taller and bulkier legs so they have bigger limbs (in volume)
So both are dense but in different places. Never mind, you are free to disagree and I don’t mean any offense to you but I don’t agree with the claim that ‘jaguars are pound for pound strongest’. It is true in theory but practically, that is not how it should work.
You keep saying to Isometrically scale them but you’re not factoring in the differences in their morphology. *not proven yet* But I think tigers Grow longer and taller than a Jaguar at equal weights. No matter how you extrapolate it, a Jaguar at equal weights should generally be a bit shorter in length and height while thicker in chest and abdominal. Neck and limbs are unknown, I certainly won’t put a Tigers forelimb ahead of the Jaguars just yet, I need to see real data on that. Skull size and weight to body size needs to be determined for both before extrapolation as well.
I’ll see what I can find on skull size tomorrow but if you want to look, check the Java Tiger thread on page 4, you’ll see some good skulls to get started then look at Almeidas skulls for comparison.
Even if we do go by what you are saying then that makes Jaguars LESS OR EQUALLY dense than Tigers. You are saying Jaguars are shorter in height and length BUT have more chest and belly girth.
This means that the VOLUME of Jaguars’ chest and belly is higher than the Tiger and more volume means less density.
Density and Volume are INVERSELY proportional to each other and if the Jaguar’s chest and belly are of higher volume then that means it is of LOWER density.
And I don’t mean any offense to you. The uppercase words and the exclaimation marks are just to make it easier for you to understand because you are not getting my point.
An average jaguar (who is not too bulky but of average bulkiness) will have a slightly lesser bite force than an average Tiger (which is not too bulky either). In short, the morphology of both the animals should be the same as it was in the study.
04-28-2022, 08:50 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 08:50 PM by Pckts )
If the chest/abdominal girth has more muscle and weight while being shorter in comparison, I fail to see how it’s less dense? And if an animal in general is shorter in height and length while being heavier, I again fail to see how it’s less dense?
04-28-2022, 08:55 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 08:59 PM by LonePredator )
(04-28-2022, 08:50 PM)Pckts Wrote: If the chest/abdominal girth has more muscle and weight while being shorter in comparison, I fail to see how it’s less dense? And if an animal in general is shorter in height and length while being heavier, I again fail to see how it’s less dense?
The longer body length and longer limbs of the Tiger are also made of muscle and weight. That isn’t made of thin air, is it?
It’s shorter in length and height BUT it is larger in chest and belly girth and therefore the volume is equal. Not more.
The Tiger has volume through length and height while the Jaguar has volume through belly and chest. Therefore, both are equally dense because both have equal volume. Now do you see what I mean?
If the Sumatran Tiger is heavier in weight despite having a thinner belly and chest (in volume), then that makes the Sumatran more dense. This is just simple physics.
04-28-2022, 09:07 PM( This post was last modified: 04-28-2022, 09:12 PM by LonePredator )
@Pckts I found something more, Tigers are NOT proportionally longer in length. The average 118kg Sumatran Tiger is 162cm in head-body length while a 104.5kg Llanos Jaguar is 156.5cm in head-body length.
Source: Guate Table for Sumatrans and Sunquist & Sunquist for Jaguars.
Which means Tigers are 2cm SHORTER than Jaguars in body length at weight parity but the difference is negligible. A Jaguar of the same head-body length as a Sumatran Tiger (162cm) will only be 115.9kg in weight while a Sumatran Tiger of the same body length is 118kg in weight so both have roughly equal body length for their size.
(04-28-2022, 09:07 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I found something more, Tigers are NOT proportionally longer in length. The average 118kg Sumatran Tiger is 162cm in head-body length while a 104.5kg Llanos Jaguar is 156.5cm in head-body length.
Source: Guate Table for Sumatrans and Sunquist & Sunquist for Jaguars.
Which means Tigers are 2cm SHORTER than Jaguars in body length at weight parity but the difference is negligible. A Jaguar of the same head-body length as a Sumatran Tiger (162cm) will only be 115.9kg in weight while a Sumatran Tiger of the same body length is 118kg in weight so both have roughly equal body length for their size.
I have plenty of 110-130kg jaguars with measurements included, there’s no need to guess. I’ll provide them tomorrow. Also if you’re comparing averages to a single individual that’s not an accurate comparison.
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
