|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 23, 2019 5:38:24 GMT -5
(From previous post............................) A clear example of the difference between big cat vs. canid and small cat vs. canid is the comparison of the cougar and gray wolf vs. the coyote and eurasian lynx and caracal. The cougar's humerus ML diameter robusticity is 9.39% and the gray wolf's is 7.85%. This indicates that the cougar is a significantly more robust animal, and can overpower a wolf when grappling and kill the wolf. The case with the coyote and the eurasian lynx and caracal is completely different with the corresponding robusticity figures below: Eurasian Lynx: 6.67% Caracal: 7.55% Coyote: 8.05% Given this data, I have a hard time believing the either of these cats will overpower the coyote and restrain it to make a killing bite. Cats require a good degree of control to kill opponents with their precise and deadly killing bite. As such, IMHO a cat species must be a good deal stronger than its opponent to win (with certain exceptions being extremely slow animals). There are quite a few cat species that have less robust humerus's than canid species, even at the same body size. The two small cat species with impressive humerus robusticity are the ocelot and the fishing cat - both of which are forest species. 7) The clouded leopard is extremely impressive grouping in the middle of the big cats. As a comparison, the CL's humerus ML diameter robusticity is 9.01% while the Eurasian Lynx is 6.67% and the wolverine's is 8.4%. www.tapatalk.com/groups/wildanimalwarfare/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=109&p=9374#p9374This source is credited to Bold Champ from Wild Animal Warfare forum. Thanks King Kodiak. I am sorry I had to use screenshots for the data as photobuckets doesn't seem to upload on my computer .
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 23, 2019 5:52:21 GMT -5
I think it is even more safe to say now that brown bears and polar bears have stronger and thicker limb bones than mustelids, big cats (saber tooth cats, pantherines, felines), hyenas, and canines pound for pound since even sloth bears have thicker bone limbs than any big cat too.
Guys do you think any big cat would refer to the saber tooth cats as well since these cats have thicker limbs than any other big cat, how would it compare with sloth bears and black bears?
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jun 23, 2019 9:42:47 GMT -5
I think it is even more safe to say now that brown bears and polar bears have stronger and thicker limb bones than mustelids, big cats (saber tooth cats, pantherines, felines), hyenas, and canines pound for pound since even sloth bears have thicker bone limbs than any big cat too. Guys do you think any big cat would refer to the saber tooth cats as well since these cats have thicker limbs than any other big cat, how would it compare with sloth bears and black bears? Well, we need a limb chart on the saber tooth cats, but it should not be that much of a difference with modern cats. So if those prehistoric cats have thicker limbs than the smaller species of bears, it should be just barely.
Also, it is a surprise to me that even the smallest species of bear, the sun bear, has even thicker limbs than big cats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 0:47:22 GMT -5
Guys do you think any big cat would refer to the saber tooth cats as well since these cats have thicker limbs than any other big cat, how would it compare with sloth bears and black bears? You can read the post made by @ursus arctos on TapatalkThe most robust of Brown bears seem to surpass even Smilodon fatalis in term of humeri robusticity. However, it seems like on average, Bears are not as robust as S.fatalis (based on quite a few data i have seen). That being said, even the most robust of Bears is still not up to that of Smilodon populator.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jun 24, 2019 1:48:54 GMT -5
The most robust of Brown bears seem to surpass even Smilodon fatalis in term of humeri robusticity. However, it seems like on average, Bears are not as robust as S.fatalis (based on quite a few data i have seen). That being said, even the most robust of Bears is still not up to that of Smilodon populator.
Ok thanks for the data Verdugo. So if i understood correctly, the most robust brown bears seem to surpass Smilodon fatalis on humeri robusticity, but Smilodon fatalis Has more robust humeri on average weights of the animals? And Smilodon populator has more robust humeri than even the most robust of bears, you mean modern brown bears correct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 4:03:09 GMT -5
Ok thanks for the data Verdugo. So if i understood correctly, the most robust brown bears seem to surpass Smilodon fatalis on humeri robusticity, but Smilodon fatalis Has more robust humeri on average weights of the animals? And Smilodon populator has more robust humeri than even the most robust of bears, you mean modern brown bears correct?
Sorry, i think i was to vague on that part. Maybe i should clarify things a bit... Usually there are two way of measuring bone robusticity: 1. Midshaft AP-diameter/length and midshaft ML-diameter/length (AP: 'Anterior-posterior', fancy term for 'back and forth' ML: 'Mediolateral', means 'side-to-side') 2. Least circumference/length For this comparison i will use least circumference/length, just to make it clear first. Data on AP and ML-diameter may be different Data provided by @ursus arctos:Plus the data in my previous comments... Ranking of humeri robusticity (least circumference/length so the higher the ratio, the more robust): 1. Smilodon populator: 0.401 2. Kodiak bear: 0.358 3. Smilodon fatalis: 0.337 4. Smilodon gracilis: 0.330 5. Polar bear: 0.325 6. Jaguar: 0.322 7. Lion: 0.318 8. Brown bear (non-Kodiak): 0.314 9. Tiger: 0.303 10. Clouded leopard: 0.298 11. Cougar: 0.291 12. Leopard: 0.290 This is based only from the data from the @ursus arctos's sources. Data from other sources could be very different so it's by no means conclusive. I hope it's a bit clearer now. P/S: Based on my personal experience, data on robusticity tends to vary a LOT so i hate drawing conclusions based on those data but anyway, i guess it may be useful for other folks.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jun 24, 2019 5:11:24 GMT -5
Yes, definitely more clear now Verdugo, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 24, 2019 8:19:02 GMT -5
Hi Verdugo. Thanks for clarifying the data there. I agree with most of it and its interesting that while the are sources that wary, there are some consistencies. Anyway there is info posted by Warsaw on Carnivora:
Contrary to expectations based on their robust limbs, Smilodon kittens show the typical pattern of growth found in other large felids (such as the Ice Age lion, Panthera atrox, as well as living tigers, cougars, servals, and wildcats) where the limb grows longer and more slender faster than they grow thick. This adaptation is thought to give felids greater running speed. Smilodon kittens do not grow increasingly more robust with age. Instead, they start out robust and follow the ancestral felid growth pattern, while maintaining their robustness compared to other felids. Apparently, the growth of felid forelimbs is highly canalized and their ontogeny is tightly constrained.
carnivora.net/showthread.php?tid=6057&page=12
The brown bears and probably polar bears still have a shorter spine compared to the elongated spine of the smilodon. Plus brown bear as well as polar bears are still better grapplers and have more flexible forearms and stronger than all smilodons (populator, fatalis, gracilis). Plus kodiak bears, Pleistocene grizzly bears, cave bears, steppe brown bears and polar bears can sustain weight over 2000 pounds potentially even though its rare - something which a smilodon can't.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Jun 26, 2019 13:04:15 GMT -5
Did you guys happen to read thru this thread? This basically included Brobear (Old Ephraim back then) going toe to toe with a Big cat guy Vodmeister. Last couple pages are quite interesting.... Kodiak, who is this Vodmeister guy?
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jun 26, 2019 18:33:39 GMT -5
Did you guys happen to read thru this thread? This basically included Brobear (Old Ephraim back then) going toe to toe with a Big cat guy Vodmeister. Last couple pages are quite interesting.... Kodiak, who is this Vodmeister guy? One of those tiger fanatics. He had some good info, but also some wrong info. He is not really active anymore.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Sept 2, 2019 10:25:34 GMT -5
Quotes from a Leed's University field zoologist Bears muscle density ________________________________________ Bengal, The bears have similar muscle densities and size to the largest bigcats. A large big cat will have similar strength to a similar sized bear and will have the same striking potential in terms of force and speed. Bigcats have a more flexible backbone which would facilitate greater freedom of movement but the bear has much stronger bones. We have found that hybernating bear bones are stronger than any other mammals on land in proportion to their size. This would permit the similar sized/power muscles to allow hitting with their absolute force, where a bigcats paw or leg may otherwise break or its yield modulus would be reached earlier. So bears can simply hit harder, rather than being much more powerful, as is often incorrectly suggested. The weak area of a bigcat is his skull. With all that weight reduction and voids for noise manufacture, he really does not want to be taking a firm hit in the head from bears or other bigcats. Bears skulls are harder than rocks. A strike at the head will not damage their skulls. There are no noise voids and weight reduction is minimised. They have a large void in the snout at the front tip of the skull for the largest nasal receptor in the animal kingdom. It is at least 3 times the size of a dog. This would suggest that it would be possible to bite off a bear’s snout or maybe deter a bear with a hit to the nose. However, getting hit by a very large bear does not bear thinking about (pardon the pun) Polar bears will simply shatter a seals skull almost every time from hits. I’ve examined hundreds of seal skulls which have been crushed by hits from these bears. I have found seals with whole chest cavities staved in and backbones which are not just broken, but shattered into small pieces. If you are comparing bears for fight purposes, then the bigcat would need to avoid the contact of bear hits and secure a head down attack of the bear’s neck. www.tapatalk.com/groups/wildanimalwarfare/brown-bears-vs-bengal-tigers-t77-s70.htmlCredited to Starfox. Personally, although a tiger and lion might have jaws that are pound to pound stronger, a larger brown bear and polar bear have a stronger skull than both a tiger and lion not just overall but even pound to pound. This is similar to the fact that the tylacine (tasmanian tiger) might have stronger jaws but a weaker skull than the dingo.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2019 4:43:33 GMT -5
Who has the strongest bones, lion, tiger, grizzly, or polar bear? Ursus arctos middendorffi, a poster respected by Peter, says that bone density is all about usage. People living in mountainous terrain generally have denser bones than people living in the flat-lands. See reply #2. Both the polar bear and the grizzly have exceptionally strong front limb bones. Polar bears "push and pull" water for days at a time. A grizzly can excavate hard earth littered with rocks and tangled with tough roots like some kind of heavy machinery. Both of these bears have iron-like limb bones.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 27, 2019 4:49:01 GMT -5
Kodiak bear>Polar bear>Grizzly bear>Tiger=Lion (Starfox says the lion's skeleton is stronger).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2019 4:57:47 GMT -5
Kodiak bear>Polar bear>Grizzly bear>Tiger=Lion (Starfox says the lion's skeleton is stronger). of course he did.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 27, 2019 5:02:09 GMT -5
Brobear: check reply # 19 on page 1 of this thread. Its proven already by actual studies that even the smallest species of bear have more robust bones (humerus) than big cats.
3) The bears are extremely robust, even the smaller species, which should not have extreme thickening of the limb bones that larger species do. Most have humerus's as or more robust (based off of ML diameter) than any big cat.
Sun Bear: 9.6%
Sloth Bear: 11.67%
Black Bear: 9.7%
Giant Panda 9.7%
4) Lion Vs. Tiger
The lion has a more robust humerus and femur based on both ML and AP diameter
Lion: 8.92%; 12.78%
Tiger: 8.57%; 11.37%
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2019 5:41:22 GMT -5
If measured from nose to rump ( equal head and body length ), bears have bigger heavier bones than do cats. The bear's skeleton is heavier. Bone density is the tightness of the bone material. Less porous. Hardest. In this the polar bears and grizzlies are likely at the top of the chart.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2019 5:56:11 GMT -5
Regarding the account above, I am not sure which website or book Warsaw got it from but it seems believable which is why the both the brown bear and polar bear have stronger forearms than a smilodon populator, american lion, and cave lion. interesting. ( Note ) London Blue Bear is speaking of the post just below this.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2019 5:59:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 27, 2019 7:19:17 GMT -5
brobear. I am londonbluebear btw. The reason why I deleted my old account is because I made my bird forum using a new account and realise I could use the same account and email on both forums a little later. Therefore, I am still posting here in a different name. While smilodons might have more robust humerous than extant bears according to inconclusive data as said by Verdugo, a brown bear and polar bear still has stronger shoulder muscles and can hit harder than smilodon populators which are digitigrades rather than plantigrades (which hit harder).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2019 7:29:01 GMT -5
brobear . I am londonbluebear btw. The reason why I deleted my old account is because I made my bird forum using a new account and realise I could use the same account and email on both forums a little later. Therefore, I am still posting here in a different name. While smilodons might have more robust humerous than extant bears according to inconclusive data as said by Verdugo, a brown bear and polar bear still has stronger shoulder muscles and can hit harder than smilodon populators which are digitigrades rather than plantigrades (which hit harder). I agree 100%. Also, a grizzly ( Ursus arctos ) has that mound of muscle on his shoulders that reinforces his already massive bear upper-body strength. Bears are simply stronger animals than the big cats, and only the extinct cave bear might compete with Ursus arctos. Here is a post from tigerluver: a biologist: First posted by Tigerluver ( biologist ). wildfact.com/forum/ Smilodon populator - A new fossil and questions about bone robusticity to cursoriality, among other issues Browsing through some older document, I found one of great insight to Smilodon fatalis and S. populator morphology, Relationships between North and South American Smilodon by Björn Kurtén and Lars Werdelin. The differences between the forms were analyzed by this work, and you can read up on it in the attachment. Postcranial anatomy interests me the most. For one, I found a record size humerus of 410 mm. Isometrically comparing to the bear humerus of 400.5 mm, this specimen would be about 470 kg (a post on p. 1 explains why bears may be better isometric basis for this species). This humerus puts S. populator back at the top of felid weights. But there's a caveat. The same document found that "the forelimb of S. populator is somewhat longer, relative to the hindlimb, than in S. fatalis. Such a lengthening of the forelimb is a characteristic of the open plains." An example of this observation is the fact that lion has a proportionally longer humerus and ulna compared to the hindlimb bones, being the only big cat living almost exclusively in the open plains. This morphological characteristic results in overestimation of mass from all bone measurements when comparing to a more average proportional individual. Bone length overestimates because the bone is disproportionately long, and width dimensions overestimate because the width is more for accommodating running stress than muscle in such cases. The brown bear has much shorter frontlimbs than hindlimbs are compared to S. populator, and a bit shorter proportions compared to S. fatalis. In this form, S. fatalis is more robust and bear-like than S. populator, but neither were probably as muscular as a bear, but rather some of the bone width was more for running stress similarly to how lions bones have widened so greatly as compared to other cats. With that, the S. populator estimation using the brown bear as the base is probably an overestimate, or faulty at the least. S. fatalis reconstructions from a brown bear may be a bit less of an overestimate. Smilodon would lack the posterior weight the bear would in the this areas due to the FL/HL discrepancy, and thus the two species are not analogous, at least for humerus calculations. It is very possible the opposite effects of mass estimation would occur if a brown bear femur is being compared to the proportionately shorter Smilodon femur. Smilodon's femur is proportionately much larger than its tibia compared to all pantherines by a long ways. Its humerus is also proportionately larger than its ulna, a ratio only matched by the very robust leopard and jaguar. The longer proximal bones is indicative of the fact that Smilodon is indeed much more heavily built than the lion and the tiger, and somewhat more heavyset than the leopard and jaguar. From this, maybe the best route of Smilodon reconstruction would be one width dimensions and/or the length dimension of the bone, either allometrically or isometrically compared to only jaguars and leopards. The type of bone being used would also have to be taken into account to predict the accuracy of the estimation. Forelimb estimates may be overestimates somewhat, and vice versa for hindlimb estimates. The cursoriality and locomotion topic is a bit convoluted. One can pick one trait of an organism and attribute it to a certain locomotion and sound accurate, but then another similar trait of another organism results in a completely different, unexpected behavior and things stop making much sense. The extremely sloped back of S. populator and somewhat sloped back of S. fatalis do not seem favorable to much high intensity running in my head, it just seems a bit off balance. Having proportionately longer proximal long bones (humerus, femur, the bone more associated with mass of the body's core) than distal long bones also makes the much running or sprinting less likely, as to be a runner or a sprinter, you'd want more ulna/tibia (the light bones which increase stride), than femur/humerus. Spoor (1986) attributes sloped backs to the assignment of the center of mass, where "In hyenas it is situated more cranial than in other large carnivores due to the heavy musculature of the fore limb, the long neck and the powerful jaws." S. populator has the first two characteristics of the hyena. Maybe it used the frontal center of mass in pinning down prey better, reducing risk to its canines. *This makes perfect sense to me. Long front legs and short back legs is not the build of a runner - what ever gave anyone that notion? Look at the cheetah.
|
|