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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---
Changes in forum policies, read this thread for more detail.

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

@Shadow :

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.
1 user Likes Spalea's post
Reply

United States Stripedlion2 Offline
Member
**

Does anyone have a bite force of a leopard and a cougar.
2 users Like Stripedlion2's post
Reply

Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****

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.

Link to the full study: http://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...2/ar.22518
4 users Like Balam's post
Reply

Canada cheetah Offline
Banned

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-PSI-of...it-so-high
1 user Likes cheetah's post
Reply

Finland Shadow Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 11-28-2020, 09:37 PM by Shadow )

(08-07-2020, 07:33 PM)Stripedlion2 Wrote: Does anyone have a bite force of a leopard and a cougar.

In this study are bite forces for leopards and cougars too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ossil_taxa


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"
2 users Like Shadow's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators

(11-28-2020, 08:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(08-07-2020, 07:33 PM)Stripedlion2 Wrote: Does anyone have a bite force of a leopard and a cougar.

In this study are bite forces for leopards and cougars too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ossil_taxa


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"


Here's the supplement with some more info.

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.
2 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****

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.
1 user Likes Balam's post
Reply

Finland Shadow Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 11-29-2020, 03:10 AM by Shadow )

(11-28-2020, 10:30 PM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 08:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(08-07-2020, 07:33 PM)Stripedlion2 Wrote: Does anyone have a bite force of a leopard and a cougar.

In this study are bite forces for leopards and cougars too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ossil_taxa


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"


Here's the supplement with some more info.

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.

                                                           BM(kg)               BFca(N)              BFcarn(N)             BFQca              BFQcarn               D


*This image is copyright of its original author


Note: Dietary categories: 1, herbivores (including frugivores); 2, omnivores; 3, piscivores; 4, carnivores, small prey; 5, carnivores,
medium-sized prey, 6, carnivores, large prey; 7, insectivores.

https://www.academia.edu/239888/Bite_for...s_Ecology_

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.
1 user Likes Shadow's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 11-29-2020, 03:35 AM by tigerluver )

(11-29-2020, 02:44 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 10:30 PM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 08:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(08-07-2020, 07:33 PM)Stripedlion2 Wrote: Does anyone have a bite force of a leopard and a cougar.

In this study are bite forces for leopards and cougars too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ossil_taxa


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"


Here's the supplement with some more info.

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.

                                                           BM(kg)               BFca(N)              BFcarn(N)             BFQca              BFQcarn               D


*This image is copyright of its original author


Note: Dietary categories: 1, herbivores (including frugivores); 2, omnivores; 3, piscivores; 4, carnivores, small prey; 5, carnivores,
medium-sized prey, 6, carnivores, large prey; 7, insectivores.

https://www.academia.edu/239888/Bite_for...s_Ecology_

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.
3 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Finland Shadow Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators

(11-29-2020, 03:32 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-29-2020, 02:44 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 10:30 PM)tigerluver Wrote:
(11-28-2020, 08:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(08-07-2020, 07:33 PM)Stripedlion2 Wrote: Does anyone have a bite force of a leopard and a cougar.

In this study are bite forces for leopards and cougars too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ossil_taxa


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"


Here's the supplement with some more info.

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.

                                                           BM(kg)               BFca(N)              BFcarn(N)             BFQca              BFQcarn               D


*This image is copyright of its original author


Note: Dietary categories: 1, herbivores (including frugivores); 2, omnivores; 3, piscivores; 4, carnivores, small prey; 5, carnivores,
medium-sized prey, 6, carnivores, large prey; 7, insectivores.

https://www.academia.edu/239888/Bite_for...s_Ecology_

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.
1 user Likes Shadow's post
Reply

Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****
( This post was last modified: 04-23-2021, 09:18 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.
1 user Likes Balam's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB