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.
(03-03-2019, 01:44 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Quick note as this seems to be a common misconception, bite force studies don't usually involve an animal actually biting. The measurements are based on skull morphometrics such as the area of the masseteric fossa. In other words, all animals studied are dead and their dry bones are simply being measured. The equipment includes a caliper, maybe a CT scanner, and a computer, no pressure sensors involved.
Nice to know. So what do you think about this study? It looks like to be quite serious and objective one:
Of course it would be very interesting to see real tests too and what kind of differences and/or similarities with calculated ones in the way you describe. But I guess, that there really isn´t any larger study so, that many different animals would have been tested in some comparable way by same people and equipment(?).
07-23-2019, 02:42 PM( This post was last modified: 07-23-2019, 02:46 PM by Shadow )
After looking how coconuts are broken by polar bears, I thought to put here a small comparison, not too scientifical :) Just a small reminder about it, how things look like in real world, no matter what figures some studies show.
Human and coconut:
Orangutan and coconut.
Gorilla and coconut.
Sun bear and coconut, no more banging with or against rocks :)
And then this polar bear.
Last, brown bear with coconut... watch from 1:15 forward.... you can do it like that too of course. If you are a bear...
(07-24-2019, 06:06 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote: Honestly, polar bear bites are severely underrated in general. Correct me if I am wrong.
In general I think, that many people don´t understand one simple rule. The bigger the animal is, the stronger is also the bite. Some exceptions can be, but in general it´s pretty easy to understand, that if one animal has twice as big head as another, bigger one bites stronger :)
Naturally shorter snout helps to get more power to canines/front teeth when biting. And naturally if we compare muscles of jaguar and leopard, it´s easy to understand, that jaguar has clearly stronger bite even when there are two same sized individuals overall.
(07-24-2019, 06:06 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote: Honestly, polar bear bites are severely underrated in general. Correct me if I am wrong.
In general I think, that many people don´t understand one simple rule. The bigger the animal is, the stronger is also the bite. Some exceptions can be, but in general it´s pretty easy to understand, that if one animal has twice as big head as another, bigger one bites stronger :)
Naturally shorter snout helps to get more power to canines/front teeth when biting. And naturally if we compare muscles of jaguar and leopard, it´s easy to understand, that jaguar has clearly stronger bite even when there are two same sized individuals overall.
Shadow, I totally agree with you. I just want to add that a larger brown bear and polar bear obviously will a stronger bite force than a smaller lion or tiger. A smilodon despite having canines that are suitable for giving skull bites have only the bite strength which is one third of a lion. An animal with stronger jaws does not mean the skull is stronger either. For example, there is a source which says that dingos skull can take more stress than that of a tasmanian tiger despite the latter having stronger jaws.
09-06-2019, 08:08 PM( This post was last modified: 09-06-2019, 08:08 PM by Shadow )
(09-06-2019, 07:00 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 06:32 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 06:06 PM)GreenGrolar Wrote: Honestly, polar bear bites are severely underrated in general. Correct me if I am wrong.
In general I think, that many people don´t understand one simple rule. The bigger the animal is, the stronger is also the bite. Some exceptions can be, but in general it´s pretty easy to understand, that if one animal has twice as big head as another, bigger one bites stronger :)
Naturally shorter snout helps to get more power to canines/front teeth when biting. And naturally if we compare muscles of jaguar and leopard, it´s easy to understand, that jaguar has clearly stronger bite even when there are two same sized individuals overall.
Shadow, I totally agree with you. I just want to add that a larger brown bear and polar bear obviously will a stronger bite force than a smaller lion or tiger. A smilodon despite having canines that are suitable for giving skull bites have only the bite strength which is one third of a lion. An animal with stronger jaws does not mean the skull is stronger either. For example, there is a source which says that dingos skull can take more stress than that of a tasmanian tiger despite the latter having stronger jaws.
I don´t want to claim too much, because some animals can be pretty close call, but for instance when thinking about jaguar and biggest cats I have never understood the idea that jaguar would really bite stronger. And recent studies seem to bust that myth. I have to admit, that I have doubts too concerning situation with biggest cats and bears. They all can break bones with bite though, so difference is most probably practically irrelevant.
To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!
To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!
I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.
Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."
Another quote: "The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."
So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.
To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!
I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.
Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."
Another quote: "The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."
So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.
Oh, sorry. I misworded my post.
Dunkleosteus bites PROPORTIONATELY harder than all those other animals. Only at the fang tip is it 36 tonnes.
To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!
I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.
Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."
Another quote: "The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."
So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.
Oh, sorry. I misworded my post.
Dunkleosteus bites PROPORTIONATELY harder than all those other animals. Only at the fang tip is it 36 tonnes.
Do you have same kind of values of these other animals? 6 tonnes for T-rex sounds a bit shy? Or is that also from tip of the fangs? I have never looked too closely those values from prehistorical creatures.
To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!
I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.
Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."
Another quote: "The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."
So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.
Oh, sorry. I misworded my post.
Dunkleosteus bites PROPORTIONATELY harder than all those other animals. Only at the fang tip is it 36 tonnes.
Do you have same kind of values of these other animals? 6 tonnes for T-rex sounds a bit shy? Or is that also from tip of the fangs? I have never looked too closely those values from prehistorical creatures.
I am not too sure either. Let's see if I can find anything, maybe from The World of Animals.
To put that into perspective, this not only outclasses the bite forces of Tyrannosaurus rex (6 tonnes), Purussaurus (7 tonnes), Megalodon (18 tonnes) and Pliosaurus (24 tonnes), but it means Dunkleosteus is able to bite down with over 7.6 times its body weight! That's immense!
I understood, that comparable bite force was 11 000 lbs, 4989,5 kg.
Quote:
"November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch."
Another quote: "The extinct fish had the strongest bite of any fish ever, and one of the strongest bites of any animal, rivaling the bites of large alligators and Tyrannosaurus rex."
So they don´t say, that it had stronger bite force than T-rex or other animals you mention. But it had strong force at the tip of the fang. If we could have same kind of numbers from these other animals, then that 80 000 lbs could be compared to those. 4,7 ton fish unlikely would have stronger muscles than bigger animals to bite. But when some force is concentrated to a very small area, values can be huge. Like a woman walking with normal shoes and then stepping on your toes, no big deal. But doing the same with high heels and with only heal, another story immediately even though same weight.
Oh, sorry. I misworded my post.
Dunkleosteus bites PROPORTIONATELY harder than all those other animals. Only at the fang tip is it 36 tonnes.
Do you have same kind of values of these other animals? 6 tonnes for T-rex sounds a bit shy? Or is that also from tip of the fangs? I have never looked too closely those values from prehistorical creatures.
I am not too sure either. Let's see if I can find anything, maybe from The World of Animals.
Or when talking about T-rex, more like tips of the teeth :) That Dunkleostus had very interesting looking teeth and head, really looking like made to focus power to frontal teeth when biting. Easy to believe that it could have had exceptional biting force focused to small area.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I'm not all that surprised about Dunkleosteus outclassing T rex - the weights are relatively close, and much closer than some of the others.
Megalodon and Pliosaurus are the most shocking
(11-05-2019, 09:45 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote: Well, to be perfectly honest, I'm not all that surprised about Dunkleosteus outclassing T rex - the weights are relatively close, and much closer than some of the others.
Megalodon and Pliosaurus are the most shocking
Yes but then again good to remember, that it looks like to have weaker biting force overall than T-rex and others, only in that small area concentrated high force. Maybe good to crack sea turtle shell etc. but not as handy with different kind of prey maybe. Of course still that almost 5 tonnes overall is impressive. Interesting fish.
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
