Considering how many times the sabertooth morphology has evolved independently, I wonder which group will do it next. I'm betting on the house cat. It will certainly liven up future seasons of AFV.
Brian; "Saber" canines are indeed pretty widespread (a great example of living saber-toothed mammals are baboons and mandrills, particularly the males). In terms of cats, though, it has been suggested that the two species of clouded leopard come pretty close anatomically to saber-toothed cats - http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-013.1
Question: the saber-tooth morphology is for stabbing, and obviously it worked, but was that different form the marsupial saber-tooths?
And how exactly did the mechanics operate? That is, if I jump on my prey and try to stab with the teeth, I have to aim for the throat (as modern cats do IIRC). If I get my mouth caught between ribs I'd be in trouble if a tooth gets stuck in there, right? Break one of those and it seems to me the cat would be in trouble.
Jesse; The marsupial saber-toothed predator Thylacosmilus differed from sabercats in lacking incisor teeth, having canines that kept growing during its life (and, iirc, had roots pushed up high into its skull), and post-canine teeth that were not as well-adapted to shearing. There were other differences, as well, but those are the main ones I can think of in the skull.
And I wouldn't say that saber-teeth in predators evolved for stabbing. "Stabbing" makes me think of repeatedly ramming the teeth into the flesh (think the shower scene in Psycho). Instead the large teeth of sabercats appeared adapted to puncture and help tear out massive pieces of flesh from their prey, and they probably aimed their bites towards soft parts (like under the throat). As suggested by a recent study (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16010.full) this type of strategy could account for why Smilodon had a weaker bite force than lions of the same size. Lions can deliver crushing, throttling bites while the Smilodon strategy would appear to be delivering a bite that would cause massive soft-tissue trauma. This would have the advantage of causing death by blood loss even if they had to break off after delivering a bite.
Generally, though, the way different sabercats hunted and attacked their prey is still up for debate. From my reading, most researchers are confident that they avoided trying to bite down on a body part of a struggling animal, but other than that things are still being hashed out.
Considering how many times the sabertooth morphology has evolved independently, I wonder which group will do it next. I'm betting on the house cat. It will certainly liven up future seasons of AFV.
Brian; "Saber" canines are indeed pretty widespread (a great example of living saber-toothed mammals are baboons and mandrills, particularly the males). In terms of cats, though, it has been suggested that the two species of clouded leopard come pretty close anatomically to saber-toothed cats - http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-013.1
Question: the saber-tooth morphology is for stabbing, and obviously it worked, but was that different form the marsupial saber-tooths?
And how exactly did the mechanics operate? That is, if I jump on my prey and try to stab with the teeth, I have to aim for the throat (as modern cats do IIRC). If I get my mouth caught between ribs I'd be in trouble if a tooth gets stuck in there, right? Break one of those and it seems to me the cat would be in trouble.
(To say nothing of the pain -- ouch!)
Just curious.
Jesse; The marsupial saber-toothed predator Thylacosmilus differed from sabercats in lacking incisor teeth, having canines that kept growing during its life (and, iirc, had roots pushed up high into its skull), and post-canine teeth that were not as well-adapted to shearing. There were other differences, as well, but those are the main ones I can think of in the skull.
And I wouldn't say that saber-teeth in predators evolved for stabbing. "Stabbing" makes me think of repeatedly ramming the teeth into the flesh (think the shower scene in Psycho). Instead the large teeth of sabercats appeared adapted to puncture and help tear out massive pieces of flesh from their prey, and they probably aimed their bites towards soft parts (like under the throat). As suggested by a recent study (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16010.full) this type of strategy could account for why Smilodon had a weaker bite force than lions of the same size. Lions can deliver crushing, throttling bites while the Smilodon strategy would appear to be delivering a bite that would cause massive soft-tissue trauma. This would have the advantage of causing death by blood loss even if they had to break off after delivering a bite.
Generally, though, the way different sabercats hunted and attacked their prey is still up for debate. From my reading, most researchers are confident that they avoided trying to bite down on a body part of a struggling animal, but other than that things are still being hashed out.