The strongest bites in the animal kingdom

[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. Reply