|
Post by smedz on Aug 10, 2019 22:18:23 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.Very true, but a Smilodon group likely worked differently from a lion pride, as the size difference between males and females was rather small. Because of that, it's been suggested that their social system was similar to that of wolves rather than lions.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 10, 2019 22:25:10 GMT -5
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. Very true, but a Smilodon group likely worked differently from a lion pride, as the size difference between males and females was rather small. Because of that, it's been suggested that their social system was similar to that of wolves rather than lions. Really? Wow, never heard that before. Thats awesome. Anyways what i meant is that Smilodons hunted in groups like lion prides, the numbers game. 2 would be enough to kill a kodiak.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Aug 12, 2019 13:56:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 12, 2019 16:00:51 GMT -5
Yeah good thread Tom. Although that thread is about the Pleistocene grizzly vs Smilodon and this one i made here is specifically Kodiak vs Smilodon, both are very similar, although Kodiaks weight more on average. Anyways, yeah like always, there were some cat fanboys in that thread which favored the Smilodon, but surprisingly i saw even some tiger fans that favored the grizzly over the Smilodon. Brobear (Old ephrain), made a great argument.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 12, 2019 17:04:47 GMT -5
Brobear might not be here now, but we already know his opinion on this subject.
Brobear
Smilodon has one very large pair of disadvantages in a fight. He can only use those long teeth for the coup de grace. Funny... big cat fanboys always claim this particular big cat to be "stronger than a grizzly" simply because he is often discribed as being "more bear-like" than a pantherine. Hell! The grizzly IS a bear... and at size parity, stronger than Smilodon.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Aug 12, 2019 17:25:34 GMT -5
Yeah I saw that and this vodmeister kid he was going back and forth and eventually caught in a lie by Brobear and he tried back peddling, pretty comical, this kid. Vod says: Brobear says: Vod says: Pretty comical the way he tried backpeddling..... When you come to debate Brobear you better have your facts straight and ducks all lined in a row or you will get roasted.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 12, 2019 18:06:40 GMT -5
Yeah, that guy Vodmeister was known to be one of the worst tiger fanboys. Our grandfather Brobear beat him pretty badly.
|
|
|
Post by smedz on Aug 16, 2019 22:07:31 GMT -5
New Meaning With new evidence can come with amazing results. With the new findings we know now that Smilodon fatalis and Panthers Atrox were likely forest cats rather than cats of the open plains, this being determined by doing isotope analysis of the teeth rather than bone collagen. Does this mean much for other species? Probably, in one well known study, it was concluded that Eurasian Cave Lions were solitary and were dominated by the social cave hyenas and wolves using bone collagen isotopic analysis. Since doing it with teeth is more reliable, maybe the mammoth steppe predator study was wrong, and perhaps those lions lion social after all. This does bring up an interesting question. How did Smilodon fatalis and Panthera Atrox coexist? That is an interesting question up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 24, 2019 1:50:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 24, 2019 5:19:51 GMT -5
Yeah thats awesome Helarctos, thats chapter 19 of “The siberian tiger project”. Anyways, why dont you tell Taipan to post the most important part, which is this one here, page 12:
12 known cases of brown bears killing and eating tigers in the wild, 6 adults (which we know by other sources that 2 were males) , 4 cubs, 2 not specified.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 24, 2019 5:35:10 GMT -5
Yeah, the female brown bears attacked gave a good battle. One of them even badly hurt the 445 lb male tiger “Dale” and almost won in a 20 minute battle.
anyways, back to Kodiak vs Populator.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 24, 2019 7:40:02 GMT -5
That account has already been posted on Old Carnivora proboards by Ursus Artos years ago. I enjoy reading that account. Btw, I we should get back the topic - I was jus posting these accounts as an indication on how kodiak bear vs smilodon would be like.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Sept 5, 2019 5:32:18 GMT -5
Researchgate:
Feeding behavior and bite force of saber-toothed predators
... Probably the most outstanding feature of Smilodon is the presence of hypertrophied upper canines that reach 28 cm in maximum crown height (Berta, 1985). The nature of the killing bite and bite mechanics of these felids remain under debate (Akersten, 1985;Bohlin, 1940;Christiansen, 2007;Emerson and Radinsky, 1980;Marinelli, 1938;Matthew, 1910;McHenry et al., 2007;Merriam and Stock, 1932;Miller, 1983Miller, , 1984Simpson, 1941;Therrien, 2005;Turner and Antón, 1997;Warren, 1853;Wroe et al., 2005). Some authors (Miller, 1969(Miller, , 1983Moodie, 1923) described wounds in machairodontine skulls attributed to sabertoothed felids. ...
... Thus, several authors consider that the upper canines of Smilodon were too fragile to be used on bony areas of their prey (Akersten, 1985;Emerson and Radinsky, 1980;Martin, 1980). In this regard, Akersten (1985) proposed that the throat and abdomen of the prey may be suitable areas for the Smilodon bite, being zones in which bone would not be encountered (see also Bohlin, 1940;Emerson and Radinsky, 1980;Martin, 1980;Matthew, 1910;Merriam and Stock, 1932;Turner and Antón, 1997;Therrien, 2005). Furthermore, FariñaFari˜Fariña et al. (2013) proposed that Smilodon could have used its strong forelimbs to seize and immobilize prey in a way that the teeth would have been able to penetrate tissues without the risk of breaking the canines. ...
... Furthermore, FariñaFari˜Fariña et al. (2013) proposed that Smilodon could have used its strong forelimbs to seize and immobilize prey in a way that the teeth would have been able to penetrate tissues without the risk of breaking the canines. Recent studies indicate that derived sabercats, such as Smilodon, were capable of high force outputs at the jaw and carnassials (Christiansen, 2011;Therrien, 2005). ...
www.researchgate.net/publication/229975051_Feeding_behavior_and_bite_force_of_saber-toothed_predators/amp
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Sept 5, 2019 5:45:17 GMT -5
Conclusions from the above post from Researchgate.
”... Thus, several authors consider that the upper canines of Smilodon were too fragile to be used on bony areas of their prey (Akersten, 1985;Emerson and Radinsky, 1980;Martin, 1980). In this regard, Akersten (1985) proposed that the throat and abdomen of the prey may be suitable areas for the Smilodon bite, being zones in which bone would not be encountered”
This is what we already know. Those long canines were to fragile to be used on bony areas of their PREY.
#1: key word there is PREY. Here in this thread we are talking about a face to face fight, not hunting. So in a struggle, those canines would do no good vs a Kodiak bear.
# 2: the kodiak bear is much smarter than the Populator so in a face to face battle it would definitely be smart enough to keep it off the throat area which is where those canines could do damage.
“... Furthermore, FariñaFari˜Fariña et al. (2013) proposed that Smilodon could have used its strong forelimbs to seize and immobilize prey in a way that the teeth would have been able to penetrate tissues without the risk of breaking the canines. ”
Smilodon had strong forelimbs, but definitely not more than a kodiak bear at same size. No one has stronger forelimbs than brown bears. So this would not have worked either.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Sept 5, 2019 9:33:54 GMT -5
Yes there seems to be much debate as to how the Sabor toothed cat killed it's prey. It's also interesting to find that the bite force of Smilodon Populator was said to be estimated about a 1/3 of what a modern day Lion's is. It's clear to me that Smilodon relied on his massive size and strength to overpower his prey to the point where he could deliver the lethal bite.
From Wiki:
I agree in a true face to face fight against a formidable foe as in large Bear, getting a killing bite would be difficult if not impossible even if the sabor tooth got the jump on the Bear. He would not be able to immobilize a large Bear long enough to deliver a lethal bite thus would likely give up the fight or be killed in a futile attempt.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Sept 5, 2019 9:54:31 GMT -5
Conclusions from the above post from Researchgate.
”... Thus, several authors consider that the upper canines of Smilodon were too fragile to be used on bony areas of their prey (Akersten, 1985;Emerson and Radinsky, 1980;Martin, 1980). In this regard, Akersten (1985) proposed that the throat and abdomen of the prey may be suitable areas for the Smilodon bite, being zones in which bone would not be encountered”
This is what we already know. Those long canines were to fragile to be used on bony areas of their PREY.
#1: key word there is PREY. Here in this thread we are talking about a face to face fight, not hunting. So in a struggle, those canines would do no good vs a Kodiak bear.
# 2: the kodiak bear is much smarter than the Populator so in a face to face battle it would definitely be smart enough to keep it off the throat area which is where those canines could do damage.
“... Furthermore, FariñaFari˜Fariña et al. (2013) proposed that Smilodon could have used its strong forelimbs to seize and immobilize prey in a way that the teeth would have been able to penetrate tissues without the risk of breaking the canines. ”
Smilodon had strong forelimbs, but definitely not more than a kodiak bear at same size. No one has stronger forelimbs than brown bears. So this would not have worked either.
Even a male polar bear would have stronger forelimbs than a smilodon populator if we were to apply the square root cube law.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Sept 5, 2019 11:27:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Sept 5, 2019 11:42:53 GMT -5
From Tom’s post:
“The blade-like carnassial teeth were used to cut skin to access the meat, and the reduced molars suggest that they were less adapted for crushing bones than modern cat.”
So it looks like the molars of modern cats are more adapted for crushing bones than the Populator. Damn, with all these disadvantages, am thinking that even a modern day cat has more chances than a populator at same weights, lmao. The only thing the populator had is stronger forelimbs than modern cats.
URSUS ARCTOS MIDDENDORFFI THE BEST OF THE LAND.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Sept 5, 2019 11:51:07 GMT -5
Yes, Smilodon appeared to have only a 1/3 the bite force of modern Lions. IMO he relied on his great strength to overpower his prey till he could deliver the coup de gras Also, see my post in prehistoric cats thread on the demise of the Smilodon Populator. Here: domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/286/prehistoric-big-cats
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Sept 5, 2019 19:01:35 GMT -5
Yeah Tom great post there in the prehistoric big cat thread. And that report you posted is confirmed in this video here (credited to Verdugo). If you look at around minute 14, it is stated that when the ice age started, the Saber toothed tiger (Smilodon), among other animals, did not adapt and died out. But some species of bears, like the Panda, adapted and survived. “Only the toughest and most adaptable survive”. Bears are more adaptable than felids.
|
|