Posted on 01/17/2008 9:35:14 AM PST by Pharmboy
Pound for pound, Australia’s extinct marsupial lion (Thylacoleo carnifex) would have made mince meat of today’s African lion (Panthera leo) had the two big hyper-carnivores ever squared off in a fight to the death, according to an Australian scientist.
New research published in the Journal of Zoology suggests that Thylacoleo killed prey rapidly, using its “bolt-cutter” type teeth to scissor through hide and flesh to produce major trauma and blood loss.
By contrast, African lions and similar big cats of today use their bite force to suffocate prey, using a “clamp and hold” technique that can take up to 15 minutes with large prey such as Cape buffalo.
“My results suggest that the marsupial lion employed a unique killing technique,” says research author Stephen Wroe. “It used its massive carnassial cheekteeth to effect major trauma and a rapid kill. Unlike any living mammalian carnivores, the marsupial’s carnassials were not only butchery tools but also active components in the killing process.”
Using a sophisticated computer modelling method [finite element (FE) analysis], that renders dynamic 3D models based on CT scans of the marsupial’s cranial mechanics and musculoskeletal architecture, Wroe has revealed that the creature’s skull, jaw, and head and neck muscles were well adapted to using the unique technique for killing large prey, but not for delivering the prolonged suffocating bite of living big cats.
“The marsupial lion also had an extremely efficient bite,” Wroe says. “In addition to very powerful jaw muscles for its size, its muscle and skull architecture were arranged in such a way as to take greater advantage of leverage than in living cats.”
Wroe, who has published findings about bite force in other hypercarnivores, such as great white sharks and sabre tooth tigers, believes there is now no doubt that Australia’s marsupial lion was a fearsome predator that punched well above its weight.
“Certainly, T carnifex was seriously over-engineered for dispatching small prey. These new findings support the conclusion that the creature regularly preyed on relatively large species and was able to effect quick kills and withstand large forces generated by large struggling prey.
“Hypothetically, had a large marsupial lion ever come face to face with an African lion of similar size, it could have use its deadly cheek teeth and incredibly powerful arms to inflict mortal wounds on the mammal,” Wroe says. “Had it not become extinct, it might now hold top spot over toady’s ‘king of the jungle.’”
###
Betcha it couldn’t beat Superman, though.
Nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw ping...
HA! I had you pinged as you were replying...unfrickinbelievable!
I wonder if I could get fit out with a set of toofs like that? Be great on beef jerky...BTT...
Heeere kitty, kitty.
One day I googled on this whole what is the most fearsome predator thing - and it is amazing all of the websites on the subject. Apparently, the grizzly bear is tops.
In other words, had it not been unsuccessful, it would have been more successful than the African lion, which continues to be successful.
Garbage in; garbage out.
Still, if it was using this technique, wouldn’t the animal still have to bleed out? This takes time. And wouldn’t it depend on which animal got the death-bite first?
I’m just asking. I’ve got no “cat” in this fight.
Exactly!!
Knowledge and fighting experience are more valuable than strength alone. Ask all the "big guys" that Bruce Lee beat up!
And BTW, great tagline. Needed to think for about 1.5 seconds before it hit.
Yes—that last line struck me as funny, and I wondered whether the writer appreciated the irony in it. Also, it would have been nice if they offered some explanation(s) as to why the kitty went toes up species-wise.
Thanks Pharmboy.
I always have a problem with this comparison. It does not say how big or what this thing might have weighed. So if it weighed in at 3 pounds and you shrunk a lion of today down to its size ... then and only then would the Marsupial lion win?
They make the same comparison with ants.
So, carnassials are the kind of molars that meat-eaters have—dogs, cats, for instance? Bears have grinding molars in back so that they are more omnivores by nature...just wondering, since my mastiff’s carnassials are the scariest teeth I’ve ever seen...:D
Although dogs can survive on an omnivorous diet, they are meat eaters as far as I know. They have no flat grinding molars, which is what I thought was the defining trait.
No arguing here, just that I thought that “dentition determines diet.”
PS, Carnassials are the big sharp scissors teeth, as opposed to the flat grinding molars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.