|
|
Post by tom on Oct 11, 2018 12:06:34 GMT -5
They are on my Phone using the Tapatalk App, but yeah, not on the computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 11, 2018 12:23:59 GMT -5
They are on my Phone using the Tapatalk App, but yeah, not on the computer. uhh.. what... huh? |
|
|
|
Post by tom on Oct 11, 2018 14:51:02 GMT -5
Yeah. If you have a smartphone and access the domain thru Tapatalk you have post #'s listed. For instance this is post #43.
I'll try to explain a little better when I get time.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 11, 2018 15:34:33 GMT -5
Yeah. If you have a smartphone and access the domain thru Tapatalk you have post #'s listed. For instance this is post #43. I'll try to explain a little better when I get time. So then, can this be fixed so that the numbers show up on a home computer? |
|
|
|
Post by tom on Oct 12, 2018 0:17:31 GMT -5
NO. Tapatalk is an app for mobile devices (smarphones, tablets etc..) Not compatible with windows or Apple based computers. Basically Tapatalk is a app that is designed to be used with forums. It makes a better platform for viewing and accessing forums. Plus, if the forum is compatible with tapatalk (which this forum is) you can quick access all your favorite forums in one place. But again, it's designed for android or apple mobile devices and not computers. At least for the time being.
If you were to use your phone or tablet to access the Domain from the normal website without Tapatalk, it would be somewhat cumbersome to view and use because of the smaller screen. Tapatalk makes it easier to view and use on your phone and it looks like in this case tapatalk creates post #'s in it's capability.
Here is a synopsis of what Tapatalk is.
Tapatalk is an application to allow access to Internet forums on mobile devices, developed by Tapatalk, Inc.[1]
Tapatalk is primarily designed to provide improved forum access for mobile platforms over access provided by the forum software itself. The application was originally designed for Android but now also supports iOS and Windows Phone.[citation needed] Tapatalk allows the user to have a unified interface to access multiple forums at the same time.
Forum software systems supported by Tapatalk are: phpBB3, vBulletin, xenForo, IPBoard, Simple Machines Forum, MyBB, bbPress, Kunena, Vanilla Forums, ASP Playground, and Drupal. In addition, 'Conversr' (the integrated forum of Composr CMS) allows for Tapatalk support via the installation of an official addon.[2]
The Domain may have the capability to include post numbers on a regular computer, but you would need administrator access to go in an customize, if at all possible. Polar may know how or could look into it. PM him.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2018 12:42:15 GMT -5
shaggygod.proboards.com/ Text extract from Naturalist Terry Domico: "The brown bear is stout and rather chunky in shape, with a large hump of fat and muscle over the shoulders and very long claws. It has a wide, massive head that some people describe as being somewhat "dish faced" in appearance. That big head is equipped with extremely powerful jaws. I once saw a big male, trapped in a leg snare set by researchers, take out its frustration on some neighboring trees. In one bite he bit completely through a 4-inch (10-cm) -diameter pine, snapping it off. It also chewed through several 6- and 8-inch (15- and 20-cm) -diameter trees. One stump looked as though it had been dynamited. When we slammed the sharp end of a geologist's pick into the trunk of one of those trees, it only penetrated about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) into the wood." Domico, T. and M. Newman. 1988. Bears of the world. Facts on File.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 10, 2018 5:03:07 GMT -5
www.allgrizzly.org/skull--dentition Viewed in absolute terms (Panel B), bite force becomes ever more loaded on the molars or carnassials the greater the force that is delivered. Hence there is a trend downward in the ratio of canine force to molar force as force increases. Also of note, bears along with some of the largest cats deliver the greatest force of all the carnivores. Much of this is a function of size, which means that size matter when it comes to absolute bite force. When standardized to size (Panel A), bears look less extreme. They actually tend to cluster lower down the curve, which means that, given their size, they are less well built to deliver bite force compared to many other carnivore species, especially of the Felids and Canids. The noteworthy exceptions are the polar bear (Uma) and the giant panda (Ame), which is not surprising. The polar bear is the most carnivorous of all bears (meaning, it needs to grasp and hold prey), whereas the panda is the most herbivorous (meaning it needs a powerful bite to grind the bamboo that comprises most of its diet).
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 6, 2018 4:06:09 GMT -5
zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1017/S0952836905006643 Skull variables were analysed for allometry patterns in 56 species of extant carnivores. As previously reported, many skull variables scale near isometrically with either skull length or lower jaw length. The maximal gape angle scales insignificantly (P<0.05) with skull size, but the clearance between the canines shows a significant relationship with skull size and scales near isometrically. Maximal bite forces were estimated from geometrical cross‐sectional areas of dried skulls, and the bending strength of the canines was computed by modelling the canines as a cantilevered beam of solid, homogeneous material with an elliptical cross section. Previous hypotheses of large taxon differences in canine bending strengths, so that felids have stronger canines than canids, are corroborated when actual bite forces at the upper canine are ignored. Incorporation of bite force values, however, nullifies the differences in canine bending strength among felids and canids, and ursids seem to have stronger canines than felids. This is probably because of the significantly longer canines of felids compared to canids and ursids, and the generally high bite forces of felids. Also read: www.scribd.com/document/223020996/Bite-Forces-Canine-Strength-and-Skull-Allometry-in-Carnivores |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 6, 2018 4:11:27 GMT -5
The estimated force produced by both the temporalis and masseter–pterygoid complex, along with estimated biteforces produced at the carnassial and canine, respectively,are listed in Table 7. The highest bite forces at boththe carnassial and the canine are present in the large pantherines, followed by the big ursid species
Ursusarctos
and
U. maritimus
. Both
Tremarctos
and the largemale specimen of the small species
U. malayanus
had surprisinglyhighbiteforces,owingtotheirproportionallyratherabbreviatedsnoutscomparedtootherursidsandthelarge size of the zygomatic arches in the latter species.The hyaenids seem not to have a markedly stronger bite than the big hypercarnivorous canids (see VanValkenburgh, 1991), such as
Canis lupus
and
Lycaon
,although
Crocuta
has the highest carnassial and canine bite forces of any species of comparable size, and is onlysurpassed by much larger ursids and the lion and the tiger.The other two hypercarnivorous species
Speothos
and
Cuon
haveconsiderablylowerbiteforcesthan
C.lupus
and
Lycaon
, owing to their smaller size.
Hyaena
sp. usually feeds on carrion or smaller vertebrate prey, and usuallyhuntssinglyinsmallnumbers(Kruuk,1976;Mills,1978),whereas
Crocuta
hunts both in packs and subdues large prey, as well as feeding on carrion (Cooper
et al
., 1999;Silvestre
etal
.,2000),crushingevenlargeboneswiththeir premolars. Apparently, the main distinction from largewolves is not the jaw adductor power for doing so, butthe massive premolars (Van Valkenburgh & Ruff, 1987).
Chrysocyon
had a surprisingly high estimated bite force,given its main diet of small vertebrates, invertebrates and eggs (Nowak, 1991; Sheldon, 1992).On average, the felids have stronger bites at any given bodysizethancanidsandursids,andthemustelids,especi-ally
Gulo
,alsoseemtohaveaproportionallypowerfulbite,as previously suggested by Radinsky (1981
a
). The largest pantherines
Panthera leo
and
P. tigris
seem to have very powerful carnassial and canine bites, despite not feedingon bone to the same extent as
Crocuta
, which is alsoevident from dental wear (Van Valkenburgh, 1988).
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 6, 2018 4:19:30 GMT -5
144 P. C
HRISTIANSEN AND
J. S. A
DOLFSSEN
Table 7.
Muscle cross sectional areas of the main jaw adductors and bite force estimation for the included carnivores. All cross-sectionalareas are given as mm
2
, and all bite force values as Newtons. All areas and forces are for one side of the skull only
M. masseter M. temporalis
Bite force atSpecimen Area Force Area Force Carnassial Canine
Ailurus fulgens
1038.1 384.1 1375.2 508.8 335.9 225.7
Mustelidae
Meles meles
973.2 360.1 2521.0 932.8 255.2 184.2
Taxidea taxus
1129.4 417.9 1592.9 589.4 322.8 217.9
Gulo gulo
1106.8 409.5 2100.6 777.7 408.3 254.3Procyonidae
Nasua nasua
481.6 178.2 882.3 326.4 87.1 53.2
Procyon cancrivorus
1022.4 378.3 2129.3 787.9 267.5 180.8
Procyon lotor
797.8 295.2 881.2 326.1 176.4 119.5
Ursidae
Tremarctos ornatus
3588.5 1327.8 7187.3 2659.3 1536.8 1197.2
Ursus malayanus
4995.1 1848.2 8116.1 3003.0 1441.7 1131.5
Ursus ursinus
3168.1 1172.2 5632.8 2084.1 708.9 550.4
Ursus americanus
3858.6 1427.7 9684.7 3583.3 1174.1 869.9
Ursus thibetanus
3534.3 1307.7 8192.4 3031.2 819.8 607.4
Ursus arctos
4974.3 1840.5 12164.1 4500.7 1417.6 1068.6
Ursus maritimus
7558.4 2796.6 16859.9 6238.2 2403.9 1730.1
Canidae
Nyctereutes procynoides
564.3 208.8 880.4 325.8 108.9 74.8
Otocyon megalotis
492.1 182.1 2478.1 176.9 86.6 59.4
Fennecus zerda
257.3 95.2 226.2 83.7 55.8 32.5
Alopex lagopus
707.1 261.6 1102.9 408.1 203.7 120.1
Vulpes vulpes
957.9 354.4 1535.3 568.0 298.4 170.3
Lycaon pictus
2297.2 850.0 4905.9 1815.2 854.0 550.5
Speothos venaticus
847.4 313.5 1035.2 383.0 272.0 170.1
Chrysocyon brachyurus
2817.5 1042.5 3977.7 1471.8 725.3 435.6
Cuon alpinus
1209.2 447.4 2735.6 1012.2 379.0 237.0
Canis lupus
3940.6 1458.0 5097.2 1886.0 1262.3 743.0
Cerdocyon thous
834.7 308.8 1109.0 410.3 182.7 113.3
Dusicyon gymnocerus
695.0 257.2 1269.2 469.6 205.4 120.1
Lycalopex vetulus
539.7 199.7 916.6 339.1 130.5 86.0
Viverridae
Nandinia binotata
215.9 79.9 400.9 148.3 54.1 38.0
Arctictis binturong
1492.9 552.4 2181.7 807.2 356.7 256.7
Genetta genetta
310.4 114.8 617.6 228.5 88.4 50.0
Civettictis civetta
511.4 189.2 1059.6 392.1 148.4 104.7
Viverricula indica
293.4 108.5 435.5 161.1 75.5 44.0
Hyaenidae
Crocuta crocuta
3735.0 1381.9 8183.4 3027.9 1421.6 782.7
Hyaena hyaena
2745.4 1015.8 5890.0 2179.3 1041.5 576.5
Hyaena brunnea
2743.9 1015.2 7167.6 2652.0 1222.8 656.2
Felidae
Neofelis nebulosa
1628.0 602.4 3362.0 1244.0 587.8 337.3
Panthera uncia
2071.1 766.3 6957.1 2574.1 884.8 559.2
Panthera pardus
2528.0 935.4 7917.3 2929.4 1376.8 841.5
Panthera leo
12137.2 4490.8 13833.2 5118.3 3405.4 2152.3
Panthera tigris
7968.1 2948.2 16345.5 6047.8 3007.2 1859.3
Panthera onca
2521.3 932.9 8909.0 3296.3 1253.6 765.9
Leopardus pardalis
824.2 305.0 2142.5 792.7 256.9 164.8
Leopardus wiedii
447.8 165.7 977.4 361.6 112.6 73.5
Leopardus tigrinus
333.3 123.3 573.3 212.1 110.4 72.4
Leopardus geoffroyi
584.6 216.3 1151.4 426.0 180.8 118.3
Lynx lynx
1274.7 471.6 2623.9 970.9 454.9 286.4
Acinonyx jubatus
2584.4 956.2 3858.2 1427.5 635.1 434.6
Puma concolor
2073.4 767.1 5450.7 2016.8 905.6 584.3
Herpailurus yagouaroundi
449.7 166.4 700.4 259.2 104.6 66.1
Pardofelis marmorata
558.5 206.6 802.3 296.9 151.4 96.5
Felis chaus
703.2 260.2 2149.0 795.1 294.6 183.4
Ictailurus planiceps
543.9 201.3 1045.5 386.8 172.4 106.2
Prionailurus bengalensis
412.7 152.7 951.6 352.1 93.7 58.5
Leptailurus serval
704.7 260.7 1822.3 674.2 223.2 151.4
Caracal caracal
853.0 315.6 2338.0 865.1 203.8 136.4
Profelis aurata
1052.5 389.4 2158.9 798.8 281.5 185.2
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 6, 2018 4:26:49 GMT -5
Ursidae
Tremarctos ornatus
3588.5 1327.8 7187.3 2659.3 1536.8 1197.2
Ursus malayanus
4995.1 1848.2 8116.1 3003.0 1441.7 1131.5
Ursus ursinus
3168.1 1172.2 5632.8 2084.1 708.9 550.4
Ursus americanus
3858.6 1427.7 9684.7 3583.3 1174.1 869.9
Ursus thibetanus
3534.3 1307.7 8192.4 3031.2 819.8 607.4
Ursus arctos
4974.3 1840.5 12164.1 4500.7 1417.6 1068.6
Ursus maritimus
7558.4 2796.6 16859.9 6238.2 2403.9 1730.1
Panthera pardus
2528.0 935.4 7917.3 2929.4 1376.8 841.5
Panthera leo
12137.2 4490.8 13833.2 5118.3 3405.4 2152.3
Panthera tigris
7968.1 2948.2 16345.5 6047.8 3007.2 1859.3
Panthera onca
2521.3 932.9 8909.0 3296.3 1253.6 765.9
Note: I'm not a college man. Polar can give an explanation. Anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 6, 2018 5:18:02 GMT -5
Yeah Polar please, we need your expertise here. give us the overall details. No way am understanding that, ha ha.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 6, 2018 5:43:28 GMT -5
Yeah Polar please, we need your expertise here. give us the overall details. No way am understanding that, ha ha. I messaged Polar.  In the old AVA it was concluded that the big cats have a stronger bite that any living bear species. Also, the grizzly has the strongest bite of any living bear ( but not pound-for-pound ). I will accept Polar's conclusions. What is important here is the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 6, 2018 6:13:42 GMT -5
But why would absolutely every single site have the bear with alot more psi than tigers and lions? Are they all wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 6, 2018 6:25:57 GMT -5
But why would absolutely every single site have the bear with alot more psi than tigers and lions? Are they all wrong? On the topic of bite-force, I honestly don't know. Not an exact science. How do you get an animal to "give it his all"? The one thing I am clear on is their usage. Big cat jaw muscles are developed for endurance. He must often hold his bite for about 20 to 30 minutes to kill a large bovine ( suffocation or strangulation ). A grizzly ( usually ) kills with a bite to the spine. Another thing perfectly clear: In a face-off, bite force is not a game-changer. No matter which ( big cat or bear ) has the top numbers; both have bites that can kill. A big plus for a mature boar grizzly is - his huge thickly muscled neck. Tigers always kill bears with a bite to the base of the skull. I have no reason to believe that a lion might have a different strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 6, 2018 6:35:39 GMT -5
Definatly, obviously they can all kill by using its jaws. The thing is bears have bigger gapes and more crunch. and i agree that is not a big factor in a fight, but should help.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 6, 2018 14:05:33 GMT -5
Pckts and I rarely agree on anything, but in this we do ( somewhat ): If we're looking for a definitive "bite force" winner then we may never know, a lot of factors come into play that can change the results but regardless you can pretty much assume that a 200kg Panthera will have far more than enough of a bite force to get the job done.
Edit and add: I have read of a great many bite-force study attempts and have watched several on TV. I remember one such study in particular on TV ( it seems either late 1990s or early 2000s ). In this study, having the animals bite-down on some kinda gizmo that registers bite-force, both the lion and the tiger gave surprisingly weak bite results. I remember very well that the grizzly came out equal with the gorilla - very high. I don't really remember how the wolf and hyena compared.
But in each and every study, different results emerge. I believe that to study each animals anatomy, as in the way prehistoric animals are studied, might actually present a more accurate picture of how the predators line-up in a contest of animal bite-force.
|
|
|
|
Post by BruteStrength on Dec 7, 2018 18:31:50 GMT -5
So it's confirmed that big cats have a stronger bite than bears?
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 7, 2018 19:04:19 GMT -5
So it's confirmed that big cats have a stronger bite than bears? Nothing has been confirmed - yet. |
|
|
|
Post by BruteStrength on Dec 7, 2018 19:06:41 GMT -5
I personally think that if we use a grizzly bear that is 1,000 pounds and up it will have a bigger bite than even the biggest tiger. At least that's what I hope.
|
|
