PDA

View Full Version : Sabe tooth cat, bite gape


learner
23rd June 2010, 04:52 AM
Last night I watched a fantastic programme (ch4 uk) called "Inside natures giants" An international team of Scientists cut open a large animal and investigate how it works. Last night was a double helping, a Lion and a Tiger. As well as amazing the audience of student vets by producing a Lions roar by pumping compressed air down its neck and playing it like a Trombone they discussed the bite gape.
I have often wondered how a Sabre tooth Cat can open its mouth wide enough to get a grip on prey, say, compared with modern big Cats.
I thought I was going to get a good answer
They demonstrated with the skull of a SBC and with a Lion. The gape of the lions was at least 9 inches, Easy to get a human arm in, side on, This was demonstrated.
The SBC however was only about 4 inches! Not wide enough to put the bite on anything much. The expert suggested that the fangs were used in a stabbing motion. This seems unlikely to me. Is it possible that they were the equivalent of a Peacocks tail, All show and no function?

quarky
23rd June 2010, 05:24 AM
Ankle biters.

LTC8K6
23rd June 2010, 05:35 AM
IIRC, other shows have shown that they were quite capable of a decent bite on something like a cow's neck.

learner
23rd June 2010, 05:42 AM
IIRC, other shows have shown that they were quite capable of a decent bite on something like a cow's neck.

During the demonstration they showed that you couldnt get a womans arm inside. Maybe there are larger Sabre tooth Cats

Professor Yaffle
23rd June 2010, 05:43 AM
A couple of relevant articles here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042153/pdf/zpq16010.pdf

http://laelaps.wordpress.com/category/extinction/

Professor Yaffle
23rd June 2010, 05:49 AM
The jaws on Sabre-Tooth cats were specially adapted to open wide and could gape to 120° (an African lion can open its jaws to about 70°), this would have permitted Smilodon to close its jaws around the neck of its victim and puncture vital blood vessels to the brain and sever the windpipe leading to a quick kill. However, these teeth are quite delicate and could shatter if they bit down onto bone.

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/1/25/3485627.html

ETA - and another article here:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/09/smilodon_the_can-opener.php

learner
23rd June 2010, 05:53 AM
A couple of relevant articles here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042153/pdf/zpq16010.pdf

http://laelaps.wordpress.com/category/extinction/

Very interesting. Thanks Prof.

quarky
23rd June 2010, 11:34 AM
I won't be alive long enough to read those links...

But tell me:

Were they ankle-biters?

(Not a bad strategy/niche for bringing down some big herbivores.)

Ziggurat
23rd June 2010, 11:43 AM
But tell me:

Were they ankle-biters?

Look at Yaffle's post: those teeth were not built to bite bone. So no, they were not ankle-biters.

(Not a bad strategy/niche for bringing down some big herbivores.)

Actually, it's a terrible strategy. The ankles of herbivores are going to be quite strong, since they carry the full weight of the animal. And they're going to be hard. And they're going to be directly connected to the strongest, fastest muscles on the animal. And when running, the ankles are the hardest part of the animal to target. Trying to bite them risks getting kicked in the face. Unless the prey is much smaller than the hunter (in which case why bother with the ankles?), a kick in the face risks serious injury.

quarky
23rd June 2010, 12:02 PM
Look at Yaffle's post: those teeth were not built to bite bone. So no, they were not ankle-biters.



Actually, it's a terrible strategy. The ankles of herbivores are going to be quite strong, since they carry the full weight of the animal. And they're going to be hard. And they're going to be directly connected to the strongest, fastest muscles on the animal. And when running, the ankles are the hardest part of the animal to target. Trying to bite them risks getting kicked in the face. Unless the prey is much smaller than the hunter (in which case why bother with the ankles?), a kick in the face risks serious injury.

OK, thanks.

(I've been wrong before; no hurt feelings; just tossing some raw idea into the fray.)










Grumble grumble

Segnosaur
23rd June 2010, 12:51 PM
Were they ankle-biters?
(Not a bad strategy/niche for bringing down some big herbivores.)

Actually, it's a terrible strategy. The ankles of herbivores are going to be quite strong, since they carry the full weight of the animal. And they're going to be hard. And they're going to be directly connected to the strongest, fastest muscles on the animal. And when running, the ankles are the hardest part of the animal to target. Trying to bite them risks getting kicked in the face.....

Not to mention the fact that if you do manage to disable one of the legs, you run the risk of a 1000 pound animal crashing down on top of you.

JoeTheJuggler
23rd June 2010, 01:31 PM
A 4" inch opening (that is between the tip of the sabertooth canines and the tips of the lower teeth) isn't capable of delivering a death bite to the neck?

And how many human arms are wider around than 4"? I don't see why an arm can't be bitten by a 4" inch opening.

Anyway, I doubt very much saber teeth were a matter of sexual selection like the peacock's tail. They evolved repeatedly in similar sized predators occupying a similar ecological niche. I think the evidence is pretty strong that they're part of the predator-prey arms/defense race. Also, the saber teeth were not sexually dimorphic, so that pretty much kills that idea.

quarky
23rd June 2010, 02:59 PM
So,


Ankle-biters?

learner
23rd June 2010, 03:15 PM
A 4" inch opening (that is between the tip of the sabertooth canines and the tips of the lower teeth) isn't capable of delivering a death bite to the neck?

And how many human arms are wider around than 4"? I don't see why an arm can't be bitten by a 4" inch opening.

Anyway, I doubt very much saber teeth were a matter of sexual selection like the peacock's tail. They evolved repeatedly in similar sized predators occupying a similar ecological niche. I think the evidence is pretty strong that they're part of the predator-prey arms/defense race. Also, the saber teeth were not sexually dimorphic, so that pretty much kills that idea.

Having enlightened myself by reading Profs links I agree they must have evolved through predator/prey selective pressure.