Marsupial lion tops African lion in fight to death

University of New South Wales ^ | 16-Jan-2008 | Stephen Wroe

[Pharmboy]

Here's what one looked like:

[martin_fierro]

Betcha it couldn’t beat Superman, though.

[Pharmboy]

Nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw ping...

[Pharmboy]

HA! I had you pinged as you were replying...unfrickinbelievable!

[Billthedrill]

I wonder if I could get fit out with a set of toofs like that? Be great on beef jerky...BTT...

[353FMG]

Heeere kitty, kitty.

[vbmoneyspender]

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.

[ClearCase_guy]

“Had it not become extinct, it might now hold top spot over toady’s ‘king of the jungle.’”

In other words, had it not been unsuccessful, it would have been more successful than the African lion, which continues to be successful.

[chesley]

Well, maybe. I did my PhD dissertation using finite element analysis, and I can tell you, it can give erroneous results if you don’t set the problem up properly.

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.

[DWar]

In other words, had it not been unsuccessful, it would have been more successful than the African lion, which continues to be successful.

Exactly!!

Knowledge and fighting experience are more valuable than strength alone. Ask all the "big guys" that Bruce Lee beat up!

[Pharmboy]

I had a similar thought to your "bleed out" comment. Perhaps this is the way it breaks down: for a wildebeest, the African lion needs to catch and get its jaws clamped on its neck; but for a face-to-face, P. leo would not be able to do that against a strong predator. So, straight-up, the marsupial wins with stronger musculature and better weapons.

And BTW, great tagline. Needed to think for about 1.5 seconds before it hit.

[Pharmboy]

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.

[Sax]

Polar Bears confronting a much larger predator:

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Pharmboy.

[Red_Devil 232]

"Pound for pound ..."

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.

[pcottraux]

Can't win 'em all.

[Judith Anne]

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

[Pharmboy]

Well, I'm certainly no tooth expert, but my knowledge from human evolution on teeth may be helpful. To wit, earlier forms of Homo and the Austalopithecines had (relatively) enormous molars compared to more modern Homo sapiens. This happened as meat became more prominent in our diet. Dogs are omnivores as are bears, so those big teeth in your dog reflect more plant-based diet than meat. I believe the size and shape of the beast of this thread were different.

[Judith Anne]

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.”

[Judith Anne]

PS, Carnassials are the big sharp scissors teeth, as opposed to the flat grinding molars.