|
|
Post by CoolJohnson on Jun 6, 2023 21:26:33 GMT
This thread is not about who is better at killing or fighting skills, but just a comparison of raw strength between the animals.
For example I asked hunter which of the two would have greater physical strength:
An American Black Bear or a Tiger?
He thought that the black bear would be stronger at equal weights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bolushi on Jun 6, 2023 21:38:42 GMT
Small bulldogs are proportionally as robust as bears. (Or more robust) Hardcastle made this chart, it's accurate but you'll have to ask him for his sources and stuff.  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJohnson on Jun 13, 2023 1:52:32 GMT
Hardcastle Bolushi ophio Wyatt @ling Hey guys. Got to bump this thread with some info that was posted on another forum. "Accordingly, ursids show a short and caudally oriented olecranon (Figure 7G, H) and, therefore, have a more upright posture and less mechanical advantage of the triceps brachii muscle." "Cats and “cat-like” species (i.e., barbourofelids and nimravids) have a longer and more cranially oriented olecranon, which is associated with their hunting strategy: modern felids use their forearms for manipulating and subduing their prey before the killing bite [12], [14], [22], [26], thus needing a powerful triceps brachii to exert enough force." journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085574"In mammalian carnivores, having robust limb bones is thought to be an adaptation in order to resist axial and bending stresses [29] related to multiple activities such as moving excavated soil during digging (e.g., the European badger) or withstanding body weight loads generated during hunting in large cats [25, 29, 33, 36, 51, 52]." bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-14-129So it looks like big cats have muscles for grappling with large prey, while bears have muscles for digging and foraging.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bolushi on Jun 13, 2023 1:55:09 GMT
Makes sense. However digging does make your limbs powerful still, and a bear knows how to use them.
I'd be interested in the info on polar bears since they're 100% carnivorous, why would this also apply to them?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJohnson on Jun 14, 2023 18:28:24 GMT
Found some things on the canid bone structure. "For example, on the one hand, a slender anatomy for humerus, radius and ulna is present in most canine canids (with the manned wolf, Chrysocyon brachyurus, as the most extreme example), hyaenids, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), the bobcat (Lynx rufus) and the serval (Leptailurus serval) among the felids, the extinct “dog-like” bear Hemicyon among the ursids, and the racoon (Procyon lotor) among the procyonids. A slender condition has been usually interpreted as an adaptation of long bones to reduce the energetic costs of terrestrial locomotion by decreasing the moment of inertia of limbs and by increasing stride length [13], [32], [112]." journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085574"On the one hand, having slender bones is common to most canine canids, hyenids, the extinct “dog-like” bear Hemicyon, the cheetah, the bobcat, and the serval. However, having slender bones is a morphological solution, which could be favoured by natural selection for different purposes such as the active pursuit of prey (e.g., the cheetah), long-distance pursuit (e.g., wolves), or long-distance foraging (e.g., foxes)." bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-14-129 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 18:46:18 GMT
Small bulldogs are proportionally as robust as bears. (Or more robust) Hardcastle made this chart, it's accurate but you'll have to ask him for his sources and stuff. I swear the pitbull is 9%. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 20:35:32 GMT
Small bulldogs are proportionally as robust as bears. (Or more robust) Hardcastle made this chart, it's accurate but you'll have to ask him for his sources and stuff. Sloth bears are crazyyyyyy. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJohnson on Jun 14, 2023 21:20:03 GMT
Small bulldogs are proportionally as robust as bears. (Or more robust) Hardcastle made this chart, it's accurate but you'll have to ask him for his sources and stuff. Sloth bears are crazyyyyyy. Are tigers really the least robust of the big cats? Aren't they notorious for their power? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 15, 2023 2:52:52 GMT
Small bulldogs are proportionally as robust as bears. (Or more robust) Hardcastle made this chart, it's accurate but you'll have to ask him for his sources and stuff. I swear the pitbull is 9%. It's about 10%, from all the best indications. The "vindolanda boarhound" was 10%, and the 2 Tac Gorsium baiting bulldogs were both 12.5%. I think I gave pitbulls that "range" trying to factor in the possibility they were more robust than the vindolanda boarhound and heading up towards the baiting bulldogs, but tbh I've since realised the so called "vindolanda boarhound" realistically had the size and shape of an apbt and is probably a good enough analogue for the average decent apbt you would see today. The archaeologists called it a "boarhound" due to the evidence of it's career fighting boars (tusk injuries, and cudgel injuries from being broken off its hold), but likely as a lead-in catch dog like an apbt rather than like a genuine running "boarhound" as we know them today. The SBT is probably genuinely half way between the boarhound and the TG bulldogs.  It's possible REAL boarhounds are actually lower than 10%, maybe 9.5% or similar. Although most dogo argentinos today are probably up closer to an apbt/vindolanda boarhound. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 15, 2023 3:14:00 GMT
Sloth bears are crazyyyyyy. Are tigers really the least robust of the big cats? Aren't they notorious for their power? Yes, but they're also huge. You do pay a price for size in "proportional" robusticity, which makes it all the more... frankly pitiful, that the small cats are so delicate. Note as well there may be data-size limitations with the bone robusticity study. They may have incidentally had very robust pumas and not so robust tigers (for example). There is obviously a lot of individual variation. We see with the wolves in the vindolanda study, there are actually 8 or so wolves and they range from as low as 6% to 8%, but with MOST in the high 7s. The carnivore limb robusticity study has them I believe at 7.85% so... close enough. If they had limited bones to work with for certain species in the bone robusticity study, who knows? We might be getting slightly skewed off results. I don't think those details, like number of individual bones used, have ever been explained. My hunch is lions and tigers would be basically the same, and pumas and leopards would be basically the same. I actually would have thought leopards/pumas < Clouded leopard < Lion/tiger < jaguar. That seems not to be the case, but again MAYBE there's a slight skew due to inadequate sample size (I have no idea). |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJohnson on Jun 17, 2023 5:01:13 GMT
Are tigers really the least robust of the big cats? Aren't they notorious for their power? Yes, but they're also huge. You do pay a price for size in "proportional" robusticity, which makes it all the more... frankly pitiful, that the small cats are so delicate. Note as well there may be data-size limitations with the bone robusticity study. They may have incidentally had very robust pumas and not so robust tigers (for example). There is obviously a lot of individual variation. We see with the wolves in the vindolanda study, there are actually 8 or so wolves and they range from as low as 6% to 8%, but with MOST in the high 7s. The carnivore limb robusticity study has them I believe at 7.85% so... close enough. If they had limited bones to work with for certain species in the bone robusticity study, who knows? We might be getting slightly skewed off results. I don't think those details, like number of individual bones used, have ever been explained. My hunch is lions and tigers would be basically the same, and pumas and leopards would be basically the same. I actually would have thought leopards/pumas < Clouded leopard < Lion/tiger < jaguar. That seems not to be the case, but again MAYBE there's a slight skew due to inadequate sample size (I have no idea). What are your thoughts about cabids having slender bones in comparison to big cats and bears? "For example, on the one hand, a slender anatomy for humerus, radius and ulna is present in most canine canids (with the manned wolf, Chrysocyon brachyurus, as the most extreme example), hyaenids, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), the bobcat (Lynx rufus) and the serval (Leptailurus serval) among the felids, the extinct “dog-like” bear Hemicyon among the ursids, and the racoon (Procyon lotor) among the procyonids. A slender condition has been usually interpreted as an adaptation of long bones to reduce the energetic costs of terrestrial locomotion by decreasing the moment of inertia of limbs and by increasing stride length [13], [32], [112]." journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085574 "On the one hand, having slender bones is common to most canine canids, hyenids, the extinct “dog-like” bear Hemicyon, the cheetah, the bobcat, and the serval. However, having slender bones is a morphological solution, which could be favoured by natural selection for different purposes such as the active pursuit of prey (e.g., the cheetah), long-distance pursuit (e.g., wolves), or long-distance foraging (e.g., foxes)." bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-14-129 |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 17, 2023 6:37:59 GMT
What are your thoughts about cabids having slender bones in comparison to big cats and bears? I think it generally rings true for wild canines vs big cats, and then is not true for bulldogs and boarhounds, as the data clearly demonstrates. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJohnson on Jul 3, 2023 20:28:30 GMT
Are tigers really the least robust of the big cats? Aren't they notorious for their power? Yes, but they're also huge. You do pay a price for size in "proportional" robusticity, which makes it all the more... frankly pitiful, that the small cats are so delicate. Note as well there may be data-size limitations with the bone robusticity study. They may have incidentally had very robust pumas and not so robust tigers (for example). There is obviously a lot of individual variation. We see with the wolves in the vindolanda study, there are actually 8 or so wolves and they range from as low as 6% to 8%, but with MOST in the high 7s. The carnivore limb robusticity study has them I believe at 7.85% so... close enough. If they had limited bones to work with for certain species in the bone robusticity study, who knows? We might be getting slightly skewed off results. I don't think those details, like number of individual bones used, have ever been explained. My hunch is lions and tigers would be basically the same, and pumas and leopards would be basically the same. I actually would have thought leopards/pumas < Clouded leopard < Lion/tiger < jaguar. That seems not to be the case, but again MAYBE there's a slight skew due to inadequate sample size (I have no idea). Do you remember the source for the Tiger robbustness? I just want to see if the Tiger is truly less robust than the other big cats. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jul 4, 2023 0:11:49 GMT
Yes, but they're also huge. You do pay a price for size in "proportional" robusticity, which makes it all the more... frankly pitiful, that the small cats are so delicate. Note as well there may be data-size limitations with the bone robusticity study. They may have incidentally had very robust pumas and not so robust tigers (for example). There is obviously a lot of individual variation. We see with the wolves in the vindolanda study, there are actually 8 or so wolves and they range from as low as 6% to 8%, but with MOST in the high 7s. The carnivore limb robusticity study has them I believe at 7.85% so... close enough. If they had limited bones to work with for certain species in the bone robusticity study, who knows? We might be getting slightly skewed off results. I don't think those details, like number of individual bones used, have ever been explained. My hunch is lions and tigers would be basically the same, and pumas and leopards would be basically the same. I actually would have thought leopards/pumas < Clouded leopard < Lion/tiger < jaguar. That seems not to be the case, but again MAYBE there's a slight skew due to inadequate sample size (I have no idea). Do you remember the source for the Tiger robbustness? I just want to see if the Tiger is truly less robust than the other big cats. You mean the carnivore limb robusticity study? I always just link to the carnivora thread talking about it because I think the original link is dead- link Note the tiger actually has more robust tibia and radius, but less robust humerus and femur. Humerus is kind of held up as the most significant bone in regards to fighting/predatory capacity. It will kind of be the one engaged most in subduing a foe, for cats or dogs (just in different ways) This pic recently posted by Kevin on WAW kind of adds another example of lion humerus seeming more robust than tiger humerus.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jul 4, 2023 0:13:24 GMT
To my eye the puma doesn't seem more proportionally robust in that last image, you'd need to scale them to the same length to be sure though.
|
|
