WildFact
›
General Section
›
Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
|
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
|
Talking about two totally different things here Vinay. You are referring to the "ave. weight of polar bears" on another thread. You were insisting that weighing bears within one single population of bears gave us the average weight of polar bears throughout their entire range; and of course you had ( accidentally ) found the population of probably the smallest of polar bears as your platform.
This topic is about bite force and I am skeptical about the results; especially since we cannot determine what scientist or science agency performed these tests - what year? Where? Their methods of testing? 
Lions and tigers have similar size and musculature. Its no stretch to conclude their bite force is also similar. The skull size and muscles around them are not
very different. Biology 101. I've read both are around 1000 psi. Its difficult, of course, to get an accurate gauge on maximum bite force, due to the fact the subject may or may not be giving its best effort. Analysis of skull structure and the muscles associated with biting can give an accurate reading for potential bite force.  (01-13-2017, 12:03 PM)Vinay Wrote: Not one but 14 Tigers and 10 lions bite force are measured..... Where did you get that conclusion? In the video you show, the only actual study shows the tiger having a slightly higher bf.
http://www.allgrizzly.org/skull--dentition
The figure immediately above provides a bit more information on the distribution and magnitude of the bite force generated by the teeth of various carnivores; work that was done primarily by Per Christiansen. A distinction is made between the bite force delivered by the canines versus the bite force delivered by the cheek teeth (i.e., molars/carnassials). Bite force is represented both in absolute terms (Newtons) as well as in terms standardized to the size of the associated animal. Each dot corresponds to a species, with bears denoted by a brown dot, and each bear species identified by a 3-letter acronym. The line represents a condition where the force delivered by the cheek teeth is equal to the force delivered by the canines. Viewed in absolute terms (Panel B), bite force becomes ever more loaded on the molars or carnassials the greater the force that is delivered. Hence there is a trend downward in the ratio of canine force to molar force as force increases. Also of note, bears along with some of the largest cats deliver the greatest force of all the carnivores. Much of this is a function of size, which means that size matter when it comes to absolute bite force. When standardized to size (Panel A), bears look less extreme. They actually tend to cluster lower down the curve, which means that, given their size, they are less well built to deliver bite force compared to many other carnivore species, especially of the Felids and Canids. The noteworthy exceptions are the polar bear (Uma) and the giant panda (Ame), which is not surprising. The polar bear is the most carnivorous of all bears (meaning, it needs to grasp and hold prey), whereas the panda is the most herbivorous (meaning it needs a powerful bite to grind the bamboo that comprises most of its diet). 
Vinay,
Your entire energy is focused in putting Tiger as supreme predator compared to Lion. You think Tiger Has most of the things superior than lion. And here most of us feel, that Lion and Tiger is almost equal in most of the department if not all. So, stop doing this, we don't want this anymore here. If you will continue this, banning you will be only option. Comparing lion and tiger can be done in near future but with more mature and qualified people and it will be in more controlled way. But for now, we don't want to discuss it here.  (01-13-2017, 07:32 PM)chaos Wrote: Lions and tigers have similar size and musculature. Its no stretch to conclude their bite force is also similar. The skull size and muscles around them are not Agreed. I don't like it when debators take scientific research in terms of its active participation and state that the participants in they study are always trying their hardest, and it is easy to tell a human to give it his/her all and near-impossible to allow the animal to do the same. Tigers tend to have slightly greater bite force at both the canines and carnassials due to a shorter, robust, and more reinforced skull than lions. I am not sure about molars, though. 
Hi @
You seem to got into some trouble again. Let me share my take on this issue. There are alot of stuff in the internet, but most of them are not scientific and unreliable. Regarding the biteforce of bigcats in particular there are several debates and info presented all over the internet, but most of them are unreliable. You see there are some scientific studies which are also cannot be considered reliable due to its limitations. As far as i know there are a couple of scientific studies on biteforce alone which cannot be taken serious due to its limited sample size (one study used one sample per species which is highly unreliable). There is also a study about muscle composition on bigcats which is also unreliable (1 or 2 subadult samples were used). So this gives you an idea about the amount of unreliable data circulating on internet. When you make a statement, using third party websites and fanboy videos (fanboys generally exaggerate minor differences into a major one) as proof is not the right approach. You should back your claims with proper reliable scientific datas, first hand source materials, email replies from experts in that particular field etc. Trust me that is the right approach. Since you seem to be very much interested in bigcats biteforce, here is a very reliable study with several subspecies and several samples involved. Click the link below http://snowleopardnetwork.org/bibliograp...n_2007.pdf If you are really interested in learning more about bigcats skull and canine morphology. You can contact @peter who as personally measured and weighed several tiger, lion, jaguar skulls. Or you can contact @tigerluver and @GrizzlyClaws who as a vast library of reliable data and measurements on this subject. I hope this post is helpful. As a Global mod of this forum Im issuing you an official warning to stop repeating these mistakes again, if ignored it may lead to a ban. I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. Thanks   (01-13-2017, 08:47 PM)Pckts Wrote:(01-13-2017, 12:03 PM)Vinay Wrote: Not one but 14 Tigers and 10 lions bite force are measured..... OMFG so many LOGICS why not you apply same logic for your arabic written half edited video ? Why your logic not think there are millions of African lions ALIVE today not only that one half edited video lion but also every lion in the world bites  I'm not a insecure lion or bear fanboys so i explain it for you... If you really saw that video the weights of the 14 Tigers was ~140 kg so they are either Sumatran or Bengal Tigresses and Lions are ~170 Kg.It means small TIGERS have HIGHER BITE FORCE THAN bigger Lions.From that any single digit IQ person will concludes normal Male Bengal Tiger bite force would be DOUBLE the African Lions.Period. @Apollo Thanks. Still many REPUTED magazines and so-called scientist claims/wrote Lions are 'King of the Jungle' and Siberian Tigers are biggest cats.... That is not only wrong but also Crime so everything is not true on internet. Enough of the warnings ... Good bye. (01-14-2017, 01:27 PM)Vinay Wrote: @Apollo Thanks. Still many REPUTED magazines and so-called scientist claims/wrote Lions are 'King of the Jungle' and Siberian Tigers are biggest cats.... Thats what Ive been saying exactly. The internet is loaded with alot of unreliable crap. Here are some remarks from some of the leading expert scientists in the field, 1. “Contrary to earlier perceptions, measurements obtained from tigers captured for radiotelemetry studies in the Indian subcontinent (Sunquist 1981; Karanth, unpubl. data) show that they are not smaller than tigers captured in the Russian Far East (Dale Miquelle and John Goodrich, unpubl. data).” K. Ullas Karanth, 2003. http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8073 2. “Surprisingly, while Siberian or Amur tigers have long been thought to be the largest of the subspecies, measurements of tigers from the Russian Far East show they are currently no larger than the Bengal tigers of the Indian subcontinent [2] (D. Miquelle and J. Goodrich, unpublished data).” Melvin Sunquist, 2010. http://books.google.com.gt/books?id=XFIbjBEQolMC&pg=PA21&dq=%22Surprisingly,+while+Siberian+or+Amur+tigers+have+long+been+thought+to+be+the+largest+%22&hl=es&sa=X&ei=aYMaT_2YIcW4tweR9P2-Cw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Surprisingly%2C%20while%20Siberian%20or%20Amur%20tigers%20have%20long%20been%20thought%20to%20be%20the%20largest%20%22&f=false 3. “Despite repeated claims in popular literature that members of the Amur population are the largest of all tigers, our measurements on more than fifty captured individuals suggest that their body size is similar to that of Bengal tigers”. Dale Miquelle, 2004. http://www.wcsrussia.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?EntryId=3190&PortalId=32&DownloadMethod=attachment 4. “Siberian tigers are often considered the largest of the tiger sub-species, although they are in fact about the same size as the Bengal tiger.” WCS-Russia, 2012. http://www.wcsrussia.org/Wildlife/AmurTi...fault.aspx 5. “However, recent data on tigers captured for telemetry studies in Nagarahole (India), Chitwan (Nepal) and in Sikhote-Alin (Russia) show that tigers from these three sites are all about the same size.” K. Ullas Karanth, 2003. http://books.google.com.gt/books?id=c44rAQAAMAAJ&q=%22show+that+tigers+from+these+three+sites+are+all+about+the+same+size.%22&dq=%22show+that+tigers+from+these+three+sites+are+all+about+the+same+size.%22&hl=es&sa=X&ei=lhwMUZnUE4a89QSlsYGoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA If you like to read more about Bengal and Amur size, check my post http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-amur-tigers?pid=27840#pid27840 If you like to leave, then its fine coz its your own decision. But if you like to stay and continue, then you got to respect the rules. (01-15-2017, 10:12 AM)Vinay Wrote: Hey @Pckts and @Apollo sorry my outburst is not directed towards both of you. I know you both are not lion or bear fan boys ..... Nice. I see a good degree of positivity in this post. I can assure you that @Spalea and @ For me personally a progressive man is the one who is ready to accept his mistakes, learn from his mistakes, correct his mistakes and move forward. If anyone cant do this, they will be stucked without any progression. Wildfact is all about respect rules, respect mods, respect fellow posters and facts. I know internet is filled with tiger, lion, bear fanatics who spout nonsense, but we mods can assure you members that wildfact will not tolerate such fanatical stuff. I also request to all members, if you see a problem report it to mods, instead dont go to rage mode by trying to face it. @ Thanks 
@
I really hope that if you keep posting stuff like this, that moderators will ban you..
Does anyone have any data on the bite forces of dromaeosaurs/raptorids such as Utahraptor or Deinonychus, other than the one I provided below? With their muscular jaws and thick, yet sharp-ass teeth, these dromaeosaurs look like they can put most modern carnivores down in shame regarding bite force.
Does Deinonychus really have one of the most powerful bites of all dinosaurs? "Experiments with modern cow bones suggest [i]Deinonychus needed a whopping 8200 N to puncture Tenontosaurus bones to the degree seen in the fossil remains. This value puts Deinonychus bites on par with those of adult alligators and leaves hyenas in the biomechanical dust."[/i] " Therrien et al. (2005) estimated [i]Deinonychus bite force at a relatively wimpy 15.7% of alligator jaw power, which Gignac et al. translate into 1450 N. This isn't unimpressive - as strong as that of a 30 kg wolf - but a far cry from an alligator-like bite, and certainly deflates our reconstructed jaw muscles to their traditional size."[/i] Two conflicting viewpoints...
@Polar
About #59: the deinonychus bite force: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1080/02...010.483535 The dromaeosaurid bite force (titled paragraphs "bite me (redux)": https://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/...ial-hawks/ About the theropods: http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blo...49384.html As concerns the deinonychus, I think a 8200N bite force is clearly exaggerated. Especially when we consider the skull structure |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 16 Guest(s) |