|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jul 19, 2019 7:54:19 GMT -5
Found this on google.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jul 19, 2019 7:54:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jul 19, 2019 17:13:22 GMT -5
Found this on google. Great find, this is very interesting here, do you happen to have the link for this? Its obvious that the Smilodon wants no part of that grizzly.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jul 22, 2019 1:42:06 GMT -5
Found this on google. Great find, this is very interesting here, do you happen to have the link for this? Its obvious that the Smilodon wants no part of that grizzly.Its from this link: www.deviantart.com/art-26/art/Grizzly-vs-Smilodon-Fatalis-244300702Somebody drew this picture on deviant art. The grizzly is chasing off a smilodon fatalis.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jul 22, 2019 3:15:31 GMT -5
Thanks. so what we see here is that the cat pretty much left with his tail between his legs.
|
|
|
Post by smedz on Aug 5, 2019 20:30:26 GMT -5
www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/08/saber-tooth-cats-surprise-fossils-redraw-picture-of-big-cat/ Saber-tooth surprise: Fossils redraw picture of the fearsome big cat Hundreds of teeth pulled from the La Brea tar pits in California are revising our image of this icon of the Ice Age. 4 MINUTE READ BY JOHN PICKRELL PUBLISHED AUGUST 5, 2019 Until about 10,000 years ago, the saber-tooth cat Smilodon fatalis was a fearsome predator in what is now the American West. More than 3,000 fossilized cats have been pulled from the acrid ooze of the La Brea tar pits in California, and researchers studying them have long pictured Smilodon as a lion-like hunter, chasing bison and horses out on open grasslands. But now, analyses of hundreds of teeth from La Brea are painting a vastly different picture of this prehistoric terror, which could weigh up to 600 pounds and sported seven-inch-long canine teeth. “The iconic images you see of saber-tooth cats taking down bison, that’s actually not supported at all,” says study leader Larisa DeSantis, a paleontologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. The research, published today in the journal Current Biology, provides evidence that Smilodon may instead have been a forest dweller that primarily feasted on leaf-browsing creatures. “[They] were more likely to be taking things like tapirs and deer, as opposed to horses and bison,” DeSantis says. TODAY’S POPULAR STORIES ANIMALSWEIRD & WILD How a humpback whale ended up with a sea lion in its mouth SCIENCE & INNOVATION The Milky Way is warped around the edges, new star map confirms SCIENCE & INNOVATION A tectonic plate is dying under Oregon. Here’s why that matters. Her team’s comprehensive study also helps to explain why smaller predators such as coyotes and grey wolves were able to survive to the modern day, while larger carnivores such as saber-tooth cats, dire wolves, and American lions all went extinct 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. (Also find out about a type of saber-tooth cat that may have encountered the first humans migrating into Europe.) The key, her team suggests, was dietary flexibility following the disappearance of many of North America’s large prehistoric herbivores, such as giant ground sloths, mammoths, mastodons, and camels. For instance, previous work found that coyotes got 20 percent smaller after the herbivore extinction event, and the new look at their teeth shows that they also adjusted their lifestyles to adapt to their new reality. “When the large predators and prey go extinct, not only do they shrink, but they fundamentally change their diet and start scavenging to become the opportunists we know today,” DeSantis says. Handle the tooth The scientists studied more than 700 fossil teeth collected from La Brea that once belonged to various herbivores as well as saber-tooth cats, American lions, dire wolves, cougars, coyotes, and grey wolves. The team looked at both microscopic patterns of wear, which give an indication of the types of foodstuffs the creatures were chewing on, as well as the proportions of two carbon isotopes within the tooth enamel. These two slight variants of the carbon atom build up in plants at different rates within forested versus open environments. Herbivores that eat those plants then carry a chemical clue to their preferred habitats within their bodies, something that gets carried over into any carnivores that prey upon them. This means that the remains of carnivores can reveal whether they were eating prey that lived in forested or more open habitats. Previous studies had looked at the proportion of carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the remains of a protein called collagen found in the bones of predators at La Brea. Those papers came to the conclusion that the largest of the predators—including Smilodon, dire wolves, and American lions—were all likely hunting in open environments. “All of the data up until this point showed they were competing for similar prey,” DeSantis says. Some experts therefore proposed that this rivalry for resources may have contributed to their extinction. But using tooth enamel is now regarded as the “gold standard” for these kinds of isotope tests, DeSantis says. “Tooth enamel is more reliable than collagen,” says Julie Meachen, a paleontologist at Des Moines University in Iowa who was not on the study team. That’s because enamel is less likely to be altered during the fossilization process or by spending a long time underground. And “when we look at the enamel, we get a totally different picture,” DeSantis says. “We find that the saber-tooth cats, American lions, and cougars are actually doing what cats typically do, which is hunting within forested ecosystems and using cover to potentially ambush their prey.” By contrast, their canine counterparts, including the dire wolves, coyotes, and grey wolves, were the ones hunting in more open environments. “The cats and dogs partition out what they are doing,” she says. Optimized to survive The results suggest there was actually much less competition for prey among the region’s largest Pleistocene carnivores, particularly between the saber-tooth cats and dire wolves. The new study is significant “because it is the first paper to show that Smilodon and dire wolves were really doing something different in terms of prey choices,” Meachen says. “It makes sense that Smilodon would hunt in a more closed environment, considering they likely did not chase prey for any appreciable distance. They were ambush predators, based on their body morphology.” The paper “adds to our understanding of who Smilodon fatalis was and where it preferred to hang out,” adds paleontologist Christopher Shaw, an affiliate curator at the Idaho Museum of Natural History and a former collections manager at the La Brea Tar Pits and Museum. Other evidence suggests Smilodon were eating bison some of the time at La Brea, he says, but this may not be as contradictory as it seems. “At one time, there was a subspecies of bison that was adapted to and lived in woodland habitats and may well have been ideal prey,” Shaw says. Critically, the study adds to evidence that highly specialized prey preferences is what likely doomed species such as Smilodon and the dire wolves, while coyotes managed to survive the ecological shift by being highly flexible and taking prey as small as rats or rabbits, in addition to scavenging. Coyotes, Meachen says, “can change their prey and even prey-killing strategy to optimize chances of survival.”
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 6, 2019 10:21:32 GMT -5
Saber-tooth surprise: Fossils redraw picture of the fearsome big cat
Hundreds of teeth pulled from the La Brea tar pits in California are revising our image of this icon of the Ice Age. Dappled by leafy shade, saber-tooth cats feast on a forest herbivore while dire wolves chase bison in the open grassland of Pleistocene California. According to analysis of their teeth, the saber-tooth cats of the American West were most likely forest-dwellers that hunted animals such as tapir and deer. ILLUSTRATION BY MAURICIO ANTÓN 4 MINUTE READ BY JOHN PICKRELL PUBLISHED AUGUST 5, 2019 Until about 10,000 years ago, the saber-tooth cat Smilodon fatalis was a fearsome predator in what is now the American West. More than 3,000 fossilized cats have been pulled from the acrid ooze of the La Brea tar pits in California, and researchers studying them have long pictured Smilodon as a lion-like hunter, chasing bison and horses out on open grasslands. But now, analyses of hundreds of teeth from La Brea are painting a vastly different picture of this prehistoric terror, which could weigh up to 600 pounds and sported seven-inch-long canine teeth. “ The iconic images you see of saber-tooth cats taking down bison, that’s actually not supported at all,” says study leader Larisa DeSantis, a paleontologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. The research, published today in the journal Current Biology, provides evidence that Smilodon may instead have been a forest dweller that primarily feasted on leaf-browsing creatures. “[They] were more likely to be taking things like tapirs and deer, as opposed to horses and bison,” DeSantis says. Her team’s comprehensive study also helps to explain why smaller predators such as coyotes and grey wolves were able to survive to the modern day, while larger carnivores such as saber-tooth cats, dire wolves, and American lions all went extinct 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. (Also find out about a type of saber-tooth cat that may have encountered the first humans migrating into Europe.) The key, her team suggests, was dietary flexibility following the disappearance of many of North America’s large prehistoric herbivores, such as giant ground sloths, mammoths, mastodons, and camels. For instance, previous work found that coyotes got 20 percent smaller after the herbivore extinction event, and the new look at their teeth shows that they also adjusted their lifestyles to adapt to their new reality. “When the large predators and prey go extinct, not only do they shrink, but they fundamentally change their diet and start scavenging to become the opportunists we know today,” DeSantis says. Handle the tooth The scientists studied more than 700 fossil teeth collected from La Brea that once belonged to various herbivores as well as saber-tooth cats, American lions, dire wolves, cougars, coyotes, and grey wolves. The team looked at both microscopic patterns of wear, which give an indication of the types of foodstuffs the creatures were chewing on, as well as the proportions of two carbon isotopes within the tooth enamel. These two slight variants of the carbon atom build up in plants at different rates within forested versus open environments. Herbivores that eat those plants then carry a chemical clue to their preferred habitats within their bodies, something that gets carried over into any carnivores that prey upon them. This means that the remains of carnivores can reveal whether they were eating prey that lived in forested or more open habitats. "The cats and dogs partition out what they are doing." Previous studies had looked at the proportion of carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the remains of a protein called collagen found in the bones of predators at La Brea. Those papers came to the conclusion that the largest of the predators—including Smilodon, dire wolves, and American lions—were all likely hunting in open environments. “All of the data up until this point showed they were competing for similar prey,” DeSantis says. Some experts therefore proposed that this rivalry for resources may have contributed to their extinction. But using tooth enamel is now regarded as the “gold standard” for these kinds of isotope tests, DeSantis says. “Tooth enamel is more reliable than collagen,” says Julie Meachen, a paleontologist at Des Moines University in Iowa who was not on the study team. That’s because enamel is less likely to be altered during the fossilization process or by spending a long time underground. And “when we look at the enamel, we get a totally different picture,” DeSantis says. “We find that the saber-tooth cats, American lions, and cougars are actually doing what cats typically do, which is hunting within forested ecosystems and using cover to potentially ambush their prey.” By contrast, their canine counterparts, including the dire wolves, coyotes, and grey wolves, were the ones hunting in more open environments. “The cats and dogs partition out what they are doing,” she says. Optimized to survive The results suggest there was actually much less competition for prey among the region’s largest Pleistocene carnivores, particularly between the saber-tooth cats and dire wolves. The new study is significant “because it is the first paper to show that Smilodon and dire wolves were really doing something different in terms of prey choices,” Meachen says. “It makes sense that Smilodon would hunt in a more closed environment, considering they likely did not chase prey for any appreciable distance. They were ambush predators, based on their body morphology.” The paper “adds to our understanding of who Smilodon fatalis was and where it preferred to hang out,” adds paleontologist Christopher Shaw, an affiliate curator at the Idaho Museum of Natural History and a former collections manager at the La Brea Tar Pits and Museum. Other evidence suggests Smilodon were eating bison some of the time at La Brea, he says, but this may not be as contradictory as it seems. “At one time, there was a subspecies of bison that was adapted to and lived in woodland habitats and may well have been ideal prey,” Shaw says. Critically, the study adds to evidence that highly specialized prey preferences is what likely doomed species such as Smilodon and the dire wolves, while coyotes managed to survive the ecological shift by being highly flexible and taking prey as small as rats or rabbits, in addition to scavenging. Coyotes, Meachen says, “can change their prey and even prey-killing strategy to optimize chances of survival.” www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/08/saber-tooth-cats-surprise-fossils-redraw-picture-of-big-cat/?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=social::src=facebook::cmp=editorial::add=fb20190805science-sabertoothcat::rid&sf217016207=1&fbclid=IwAR18ZEzWvLyJqDDRSt1CT1MYMU5sjPAAmBsgkM7WZ5tBSIpqFXX9lRF3S0Ucarnivora.net/showthread.php?tid=425&pid=67386#pid67386Account originally from Carnivora.
|
|
|
Post by smedz on Aug 6, 2019 21:30:11 GMT -5
The new findings are incredible! So much for Smilodons vs Dire Wolves. Now to ask ourselves, what does this mean for Homotherium serum? With those cats living on the plains, and with the new findings showing Panthera Atrox was a forest cat, interactions between the two would be pretty rare. However, dire wolves were living in the open plains, and with them hunting horses, bison, etc, they would have competed with scimitar cats over resources, and therefore, would not have liked each other.
Time to edit the old post on the scimitar cat being social.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 9, 2019 19:50:10 GMT -5
The Kodiak bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi), also known as the Kodiak brown bear, sometimes the Alaskan brown bear, inhabits the islands of the Kodiak Archipelago in southwest Alaska.[2] It is the largest recognized subspecies of brown bear, and one of the two largest bears alive today, the other being the polar bear.[3] Physiologically, the Kodiak bear is very similar to the other brown bear subspecies, such as the mainland grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) and the now-extinct California grizzly bear (U. a. californicus†), with the main difference being in size. While there is generally much variation in size between brown bears in different areas, most usually weigh between 115 and 360 kg (254 and 794 lb).[4] The Kodiak bear, on the other hand, commonly reaches sizes of 300 to 600 kg (660 to 1,320 lb), and has even been known to exceed weights of 680 kg (1,500 lb).[2] Despite this large variation in size, the diet and lifestyle of the Kodiak bear does not differ greatly from that of other brown bears. Smilodon populator (Smilodon populator Lund, 1842) Order: Carnivora Family: Felidae Size: was around 2.3 meters long, 1,2 meters tall at the shoulder. Weight estimated about 400 kg. Time period: Throughout the Pleistocene, till the very early Holocene (South America). Smilodon was the largest saber-tooth cat (popularly known as the sabre tooth tiger). It was a fierce predator about 1.5- 2,3 metres long and 1.2 metres tall. It weighed about 400 kg. It was a bit smaller than a modern-day lion (Panthera Leo), but much heavier. It had relatively short legs and a short, bobbed tail a bit like that of a modern-day Bobcat which is why it is called that because of its bob-like tail. Its front legs were especially powerful and its body was adapted for springing onto prey, but it was not a very fast runner and could not be adapted for chasing after fast running prey like deer. It could hunt some slower animals such as Macrauchenia (Macrauchenia patagonica), Toxodon (Toxodon), some subspecies of Mammoths, Ground Sloths (Megatherium), early humans, etc). Its 30 cm skull had 2 huge saber-like canine teeth and these were serrated, oval in cross-section, and up to 18 cm long. Many Smilodon fossils have been found with broken canines; a fossil wolf was found with a Smilodon tooth fragment embedded in its skull. Smilodon had powerful jaws that opened to an angle of about 120 degrees while onthe other hand, todays lions can only open their jaws at 65 degrees. Smilodon also had very strong jaw and neck muscles that let it stab prey with its deadly maxillary canine sabre teeth. Its front incisor teeth may also have been used to wrip away strips of flesh from the bones of its prey.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 9, 2019 20:09:46 GMT -5
KODIAK BEAR VS SMILODON POPULATOR:
a very famous battle in other forums. Now lets take a look at the advantages and disadvantages.
1 - Numbers. This is a huge advantage.
1 vs 1 face to face fight.
#2 - Experience. This is a great advantage if coupled with learning ability.
The fight would have to be between two experienced specimens.
#3 - Size and Weight.
At average weights and max weights, the Kodiak has a big weight advantage. It would have to be a Smilodon at max weights, around 880 lbs, vs a Kodiak basically at average weights after hibernation. #4 - Strength and Leverage. Kodiak takes both. #5 - Speed and Quick Reflexes.
Smilodon takes both. #6 - Agility. Smildon is more agile. #7 - Natural Weapons.
Kodiak has longer claws, Smilodon has longer canines. #8 - Natural Armor.
Kodiak has much better armor. #9 - Grappling Ability.
Kodiak is a much better grappler #10 - Intelligence. Kodiak being a bear is much more intelligent.
#11 - Bipedal Ability.
Kodiak takes this. #11 - Aggressiveness.
Very subjective and depends on the situation, but i think Smilodon takes this. #12 - Bite Force.
Smilodon should take this one. #13 - Stamina. Kodiak for sure takes this. #14 - Endurance to Pain and Injury.
Kodiak for sure. #15 - Paw-Strike.
The Kodiak is plantigrade while the Smilodon is digitigrade. This means the Kodiak has more swinging force and a fighting advantage.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 9, 2019 20:18:31 GMT -5
Kodiak bear vs Smilodon populator, face to face, same weight, the Kodiak bear wins 6/7 out of 10 times. if the Kodiak has a weight advantage of 200 lbs or more, the Kodiak wins 8/9 out of 10 times, and you can bet your life on this.
URSUS ARCTOS MIDDENDORFFI THE BEST OF THE LAND.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 9, 2019 21:24:16 GMT -5
I support the Kodiak bear at weight parity too. I am not sure which is more aggressive. However, I agree with most of your points. The smilodon is capable of killing with skull bites buts its going to be hard to kill an opponent that is trashing around and fighting back unlike killing prey which is running. Also there is a source that indicates smilodons might not be able to wrestle prey the same way lions do because these long canines (while not like twigs) can be broken if prey struggles. Therefore, a smilodon has to kill powerful prey quickly. There is an account on another forum where a baboon has its fang broken and stuck in the arm if a man. Long canines are good for stabbing and slashing but are more easily broken than shorter canines plus a poster did mention an account where gorillas fought each other with skull bites which ended with a canine tooth broke off.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 9, 2019 21:30:10 GMT -5
I think that the Kodiak bear relationship with the smilodon populator could be like the same relationship an Ussuri brown bear has with the Siberian tiger except that the sabre toothed cat is much more sociable. Off topic: The male polar bear would beat a smilodon populator at average and maximum weights. At parity, a male polar bear beats the smilodon populator 6/10 (probably a subadult male to an average male) but even then the latter will normally avoid the former one on one. The smilodon populator would find it easier to kill a female polar and Kodiak bear but will have to be careful if these female bears have cubs to protect.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 10, 2019 7:00:04 GMT -5
Oldblue: yeah definitely, basically every source states that those Smilodon canines broke off easily, i have read also that is doubtful that it would have been able to even open its mouth large enough to use those canines properly.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Aug 10, 2019 8:45:46 GMT -5
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a 880 pound Populator vs a 900 kodiak that the Kodiak wins 8 out of 10 times. As was mentioned the Sabor cat's long canines were prone to fracturing due to their length thus the cat would have to be extremely careful when using them to make a killing bite. The Kodiak overall is so much more robust and the neck and shoulder muscles enable him to over power any attempt by the sabor cat. You combine the Kodiak bears strength with his long 3-4 " claws and you have a very deadly combination, too much for any Cat for that matter one on one IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 9:03:28 GMT -5
Anyone got an idea of Kodiak bears' aggression? Grizzlies are known for their aggression (they are called horribilis for a reason) but i don't know if this is true for all U.arctos.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 10, 2019 9:12:26 GMT -5
Anyone got an idea of Kodiak bears' aggression? Grizzlies are known for their aggression (they are called horribilis for a reason) but i don't know if this is true for all U.arctos. Overall, its more than obvious that grizzly bears are more aggressive because they have to deal with other predators in their habitat, so they have to be more aggressive. Kodiaks dont have to deal with other predators other than the red fox which obviously is not a threat. I am pretty sure a Smilodon is more aggressive overall, anyhow, in a life or death situation, any animal could be very aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Aug 10, 2019 10:02:23 GMT -5
I think also the reason for the inland Grizzlies aggression and especially the baron Ground Grizzly variety is that they do not have nearly the food supply at their disposal and many times has to cover great distances to get a substantial meal. So when he finds something and has to fight for it he will absolutely. As is the case with all coastal Brown bears (Kodiak's included) they generally have all the food available to them that they can eat, especially during the salmon runs and thus are less aggressive especially during this time. Even humans can approach these Giants at relatively close distances when their bellies are full. Come October when some of the Bears especially older less dominant Bears are not in good condition to hibernate they can be extremely aggressive. Look no further than what happened to Timothy Treadwell.
|
|
|
Post by smedz on Aug 10, 2019 22:06:04 GMT -5
I myself support a Kodiak Bear over a Smilodon. As for the interesting question, what if they lived together? One on one, the bear has the advantage, in fact, I'd probably follow a lone cat to take a kill. However, since Smilodon Populator was a cat of the South American grasslands, it's pretty safe it was a social animal. How big the groups were is anyone's guess. Regardless, a group of cats with their massive combined weight would overpower the bear.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 10, 2019 22:14:04 GMT -5
I myself support a Kodiak Bear over a Smilodon. As for the interesting question, what if they lived together? One on one, the bear has the advantage, in fact, I'd probably follow a lone cat to take a kill. However, since Smilodon Populator was a cat of the South American grasslands, it's pretty safe it was a social animal. How big the groups were is anyone's guess. Regardless, a group of cats with their massive combined weight would overpower the bear. Yeah, Smilodons were social and hunted in groups, similar to lion prides. Even only 2 smilodons working together would kill a Kodiak. One might get hurt though.
|
|