|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 9, 2020 4:38:43 GMT -5
How would a Sabre toothed cat and an African lion or tiger end up like? brobear , I believe you said the Sabre toothed cats might not be that aggressive because of its lack of sexual demorphism. I am keen to hear your input on this one.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 9, 2020 5:08:34 GMT -5
How would a Sabre toothed cat and an African lion or tiger end up like? brobear , I believe you said the Sabre toothed cats might not be that aggressive because of its lack of sexual demorphism. I am keen to hear your input on this one. ( IMO )... I believe that in Pleistocene North and South America, the dominant big cat was Panthera atrox - a distant relative of the lion. The saber-toothed variety probably ( IMO ) came in second place.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 9, 2020 5:19:12 GMT -5
Isn’t there data which says the smilodon populator has the strongest forearms of all cats ? The Xenosmilus has greater grappling ability than the smilodon populator.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 11, 2020 3:04:58 GMT -5
Not sure if this info has been posted here yet:
Saber-toothed Cats Wrestled Prey with Powerful Arms.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 11, 2020 3:08:53 GMT -5
Sabertooths Had Weak Bites, Used Neck Muscles to Kill.At least two species of sabertooths were more muscle than bite, subduing their prey with powerful necks and forelimbs, a new study says. The long-fanged prehistoric predators "have long excited scholarly and popular attention," particularly in regard to their hunting technique, according to a study published June 26 in the journal PLoS ONE. One question scientists have paid particular attention to was whether the cats ran down prey like lions, dispatching them with a powerful bite to the throat. Ongoing research has suggested not. For instance, a 2007 study found that North America's saber-toothed cat Smilodon fatalis was a wimpy biter when compared with modern-day lions. Now a new computer model based on the biomechanics of fossil skulls shows that both Smilodon and a "bizarre," distantly related sabertooth species, Thylacosmilus atrox, had weak jaws but extremely strong neck muscles, which they used to sink their long teeth deep into flesh, according to the study. The finding sheds light on the evolution of this killing method—one that's arisen several times over the history of life on Earth, said study co-author Lawrence Witmer, a paleontologist at Ohio University. Witmer broke down his research and what we should know about these fearsome beasts. I don't think most people know there was more than one sabertooth species. Yes, there were many species of saber-toothed animals—not just saber-toothed cats or the saber-toothed tiger that's well known from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. Thylacosmilus atrox isn't a cat at all; it's actually something more closely related to marsupials. This is an animal that probably had a pouch. (See "'Social' Sabertooths Hunted in Packs, Study Says.") Did the sabertooth species interact? Some of them may have encountered each other. Thylacosmilus lived about seven million years ago in Argentina, and Smilodon lived about two million years ago in North America. We're living in an unusual time in that there are no sabertooth predatory animals around today. This type of [animal with] long canine teeth used for killing has evolved over and over again in the history of mammals—which is called iterative evolution. We might predict in another 5, 10, or 15 million years, a sabertooth might evolve again. (Watch a video of what a sabertooth might have looked like.) What's interesting about this study is we're looking at a true cat, Smilodon, compared with the marsupial cousin Thylacosmilus, something that is far removed from pouchless placental mammals. This provides us the opportunity to look at convergent evolution—the independent evolution of similar-looking structures—in this case, long knife-like canine teeth, as well as bony features suggesting low bite force—in different animal groups engaging in similar functions. What is a biomechanical model and how does it work? We took these original fossil skulls—which we got on loan—and ran them through a CT scanner. That transfers the sabertooth skulls into a computer environment. We then used different kinds of software, including the kind engineers use to run simulations on the structure of bridges or buildings. You can apply these to animals to see how the skull models respond to simulated stresses or strains. They're almost like crash tests. One of the things we could model is where the muscles were, and we could make them work digitally. We assigned forces and contraction parameters to make the muscles function like normal jaw muscles to see how the jaw responds. You get these multicolored images that show areas of high and low stress, which indicates what parts were stronger and what parts were weaker. What were the results? Both of these sabertooths had relatively weak bites, despite the fact they're using their sabers as killing devices. We looked at the head-depressing muscles—which run from the neck to the head and drive the head down—and found that the animals weren't chomping down on prey, they were driving the teeth into the prey using their neck muscles. (Also see "Sabertooth Cousin Found in Venezuela Tar Pit—A First.") People may think of them being fast runners, but sabertooths were probably ambush predators, with strong forelimbs and necks. We envision these animals subduing prey with their forelimbs, holding them down, and then driving sabers into the flesh with their neck muscles. The marsupial cousin Thylacosmilus made a much bigger commitment to this way of life—it had a much weaker bite force, and had to use its neck muscles and forequarters as important parts of its killing strategy. Were you surprised? People have speculated, but the new piece was comparing the classic sabertooth Smilodon to a specialized marsupial cousin. We often mistakenly view marsupials and their relatives as being sort of primitive kinds of animals because they branched off earlier in evolution. Here we can see Thylacosmilus was in some respects a more highly evolved, sophisticated animal than Smilodon because of its even more specialized killing behavior. Why do you want to know about how these ancient animals behaved? Partly because it's part of our job as paleontologists to try to comprehend the history of life on our planet. From a broader perspective, it allows us to look at how evolution works with the raw materials of what came before. For instance, on the one hand we have Smilodon that evolved into something we'd recognize to be a cat. On the other hand we have the evolution of something very different, Thylacosmilus, which was related more to opossums than cats. It's also part of a new, groundbreaking way to look at extinct animals by applying engineering techniques—it's another way to look at the past. www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/7/130702-sabertooth-cat-bite-prehistoric-science-animals/
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 11, 2020 3:20:22 GMT -5
From post #99: www.livescience.com/6683-saber-toothed-cats-wrestled-prey-powerful-arms.html Saber-toothed Cats Wrestled Prey with Powerful Arms - By Charles Q. Choi July 02, 2010. Saber-toothed cats might be most famous for their oversized fangs, but scientists now find the feisty felines had another exceptional feature — powerful arms stronger than those of any cat alive today. Commonly known as the "saber-toothed tiger," the extinct cat Smilodon fatalis roamed the Americas until roughly 10,000 years ago, preying on "megafauna" — large animals such as mammoths, bison, camels and mastodons. Their specialization on such giant creatures might have doomed these hunters when their Ice Age prey died off. [The World's Biggest Beasts] The most recognizable features of the saber-toothed cat — giant, dagger-like canines — were also perhaps its most puzzling. The fangs would have been excellent at inflicting deadly slashing bites to its prey's throat, but their size and shape would also have made them highly vulnerable to fracturing compared with modern cats. That led researchers to wonder how the fangs developed in the first place. "Cats living today have canines that are round in cross-section, so they can withstand forces in all directions," said researcher Julie Meachen-Samuels, a paleontologist at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, N.C. "If the prey is struggling it doesn't matter which way it's pulling — their teeth are unlikely to break." In contrast, the long canines of saber-toothed cats were oval in cross-section, or thinner side-to-side, making them relatively fragile. This suggested that saber-toothed cats must have killed prey differently from other cats. In fact, research published in 2007 suggested Smilodon had a wimpy bite. That's where the powerful arms come in. These predators might have pinned victims down with their heavily muscled forelimbs to protect their teeth from fracturing as they bit struggling prey, Meachen-Samuels said. In an arm-wrestling match of sorts, the researchers compared saber-tooth arms with those of other cats. To do so, they X-rayed the arm and leg bones of fossils recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. They also analyzed the limb bones of 28 cat species living today — ranging in size from the 6-pound (2.7-kilogram) margay to the 600-pound (272-kg) tiger — as well as the extinct American lion, the largest cat with conical teeth that ever lived. These measurements helped the researchers estimate bone length, rigidity and strength for each species. Species with longer limbs generally had stronger bones. However, while saber-tooth leg bones fell within the normal range, their arm bones were exceptionally thick for their length. Not only that, their arms also had thicker cortical bone — the dense outer layer that makes bones strong and stiff. "When I looked at Smilodon, I knew they were thicker on the outside than other cats, but I was really shocked at how much thicker they were on the inside as well," Meachen-Samuels told Live Science. The thicker cortical bone seen with the saber-toothed cats makes sense if the arms were under greater stress than normally expected for cats their size, Meachen-Samuels explained. Just as lifting weights improves bone density over time, so too may the repeated strain of grappling with prey have resulted in thicker and stronger arm bones in saber-toothed cats. "As muscles pull on bones, bones respond by getting stronger," Meachen-Samuels said. "Because saber-toothed cats had thicker arm bones, we think they must have used their forelimbs more than other cats did." The researchers would like to next look at other saber-toothed cats, as well as other saber-toothed predators that once existed. "There aren't a lot of arm bones to X-ray for other saber-toothed predators, but it'd be interesting to see if there were convergent processes with their arms as well," Meachen-Samuels said. Meachen-Samuels and her colleague Blaire Van Valkenburgh detailed their findings online July 2 in PLoS ONE.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 16, 2020 3:52:15 GMT -5
American Scimitar - Homotherium serum The scimitar cat is the lesser known of the two ‘sabre-toothed’ cats of ice age North America. This extinct cat was a formidable hunter and evidence suggests it was the major predator of mammoths during its time. Scimitar cats were about the size of a modern lion but had longer, more slender limbs. Their most distinctive feature was their sabre-like teeth a feature that they shared with their American cousins, sabre-toothed cats. Several key features distinguish scimitar cats from sabre-tooths. The canine teeth of scimitar cats were shorter and more slender than those of the sabre-tooth and were finely serrated, making them powerful slicing tools. The scimitar cat had a somewhat unusual build with comparatively long front legs, a sloping back and shorter hind legs. Height: 1.1m (3.5ft) at the shoulder, Weight: 150-250 kg (330-550lb). American Black Bear - Ursus americanus The American black bear or North American black bear (Ursus americanus) is a medium-sized bear native to North America. It is the continent's smallest and most common bear species. Black bears are omnivores, with their diets varying greatly depending on season and location. They typically live in largely forested areas, but do leave forests in search of food. Black bear weight tends to vary according to age, sex, health, and season. Seasonal variation in weight is very pronounced: in autumn, their pre-den weight tends to be 30% higher than in spring, when black bears emerge from their dens. Black bears on the East Coast tend to be heavier on average than those on the West Coast. Adult males typically weigh between 57–250 kg (130–550 lb), while females weigh 33% less at 41–170 kg (90–370 lb). Adults have a typical size range of 120–200 cm (47–79 in) in length, and 70–105 cm (28–41 in) in shoulder height. The tail is 7.7–17.7 cm (3.0–7.0 in) long. Up to 85% of the black bear's diet consists of vegetation, though they tend to dig less than brown bears, eating far fewer roots, bulbs, corms and tubers than the latter species. carnivora.net/american-scimitar-v-american-black-bear-t8636.html#p124744From Carnivora.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 16, 2020 9:02:22 GMT -5
I will be the first to comment. An American scimitar has less robust limbs compared to a modern days lion. The American black bear seems to have better shoulder muscles and grappling ability compared to African lions. Yet it has less robust front limbs compared to both the brown bear and the lion.
I will vote for the American black bear.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jun 16, 2020 17:34:49 GMT -5
Well, at same weight, i will give this match up a 50%. American black bears are of the least better fighters among bear species. The scimitar was partially plantigrade which was an advantage as we know.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 17, 2020 8:31:17 GMT -5
Nice find TheGreenArtos. He is roughly the size of a Rocky Mountain grizzly.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 17, 2020 8:49:32 GMT -5
Nice find TheGreenArtos. He is roughly the size of a Rocky Mountain grizzly. Thank you brobear. I still think a male grizzly bear will beat a smilodon fatalis given its greater grappling skills, longer claws, and stronger jaws.
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Aug 31, 2020 2:18:35 GMT -5
According to most reliable sources Smilodon populator reached an average weight of ~660lbs (300kg) based on the fossils being found so far. In my opinion the only extant bear populations/subspecies who could confidently stand up against it would be an Alaskan coastal grizzly/Kodiak bear, Kamchatkan brown bear or a polar bear (taking their average weights into account). What are your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 31, 2020 3:01:53 GMT -5
According to most reliable sources Smilodon populator reached an average weight of ~660lbs (300kg) based on the fossils being found so far. In my opinion the only extant bear populations/subspecies who could confidently stand up against it would be an Alaskan coastal grizzly/Kodiak bear, Kamchatkan brown bear or a polar bear (taking their average weights into account). What are your thoughts on this? *The latest chart made by GuateGojira has Ursus arctos Lasiotus at an average weight of 270 kg (595 lbs). Considering that this average comes from a group consisting of bears ranging in age from 5 year olds and up, I would think that the average full-grown male Ussuri brown bear would weigh pretty close to 700 pounds. This ( if I'm not wrong ) would place Russia's black grizzly at roughly weight-parity with Smilodon populator. Therefore, I would say ( IMO ) we can add the Ussuri brown bear to this list along with the Alaskan peninsula brown bear, the Kamchatka brown bear, and the Kodiak bear.
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Aug 31, 2020 3:32:28 GMT -5
brobearThey would roughly be at weight parity then (when taking fully grown specimens into account); it would be an enormously difficult fight for the brown bear then. That's why I signaled the word "confidently" in my previous post; the Ussuri brown bear can certainly put up a decent fight, however, I would only bet my money on the aforementioned bears when talking about a fairly "clean" victory the majority of the time.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 31, 2020 5:03:12 GMT -5
brobear They would roughly be at weight parity then (when taking fully grown specimens into account); it would be an enormously difficult fight for the brown bear then. That's why I signaled the word "confidently" in my previous post; the Ussuri brown bear can certainly put up a decent fight, however, I would only bet my money on the aforementioned bears when talking about a fairly "clean" victory the majority of the time. Oh; yes I agree. In fact, though among us bear enthusiasts we share different opinions on weight-parity fights, I give a brown bear only a 50% chance of a victory against any species of cat. No more; no less. Yeah; I missed that key word, "confidently".
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 4, 2020 5:06:47 GMT -5
Smilodon Populator vs Ussuri Brown Bear
Smilodon Populator vs Ussuri Brown Bear - Great comparison picture 'Taker. I would wager on the bear, but this fight would be hard-earned. The saber-tooth would have to pin the bear and hold him still long enough to deliver the "coup de grâce". I don't believe that even this ( possibly ) biggest-ever of the big cats could manage it. The average full-grown boar Ussuri brown bear and Smilodon populator were pretty-much at weight-parity. So yes, I would *confidently wager on the bear. *Normally, I give a big cat a 50-50 in a face-off with a bear. But, with the saber-tooth's different killing method, I would give it to the bear at 6 out of 10. I do believe though; when this fight is over, the victor of these two Carnivorans will limp away with some serious battle scars.
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Oct 4, 2020 5:20:41 GMT -5
Regarding this fight I'm not so sure; it could go either way to be honest. We unfortunately don't really know how big a fully grown Smilodon Populator was; the average weight of the type specimens found was concluded as being roughly 300kg (660lbs) with the largest individuals weighing close to 900lbs.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 4, 2020 5:24:13 GMT -5
Regarding this fight I'm not so sure; it could go either way to be honest. We unfortunately don't really know how big a fully grown Smilodon Populator was; the average weight of the type specimens found was concluded as being roughly 300kg (660lbs) with the largest individuals weighing close to 900lbs. However, those numbers pretty-much corresponds with the Ussuri brown bear ( from what info we are getting ).
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Oct 4, 2020 5:27:30 GMT -5
brobear At weight parity I might slightly favour the brown bear but just by a hunch; give me a Kodiak bear or a polar bear and I am quite confident with the bear winning. From a physical standpoint of view sabretooths were pretty much the bears of all cats and extremely powerful grapplers; this matchup (Smilodon Populator v Ussuri brown bear) would be a hell of a fight imo.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 4, 2020 6:40:34 GMT -5
I agree that the saber-tooths were built stronger than the Pantherines. I figure, to ambush, hold onto, and maneuver large herbivores into position; then hold the struggling herbivore while he slices his prey's throat. All of the Pantherines are specialists ( ambush predators ) although the lion slightly less so. The saber-tooths, if the Paleontologists are correct, were even more strongly specialists than the Pantherines. The Pantheines have multiple killing techniques. The saber-tooths, according to popular theory, had only one killing technique - to slice the throat. If these Paleontologists are correct; Smilodon would have been a strong grappler, but he would have a difficult struggle to maneuver a brown bear into position for the kill. Meanwhile, the bear has not been sitting on his paws. ( all just opinion ).
|
|