Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
No, the title isn't clickbait. T.rex probably had the most powerful bite of any animal known.

Now, you may be thinking "But sss, it was already estimated that T.rex had a bite force of 35-57 kN, which is no where near as powerful as the largest megatooth sharks or pliosaur bite forces.", and you would be wrong. Take a look.

rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.or…

"Bite mechanics and feeding behaviour in Tyrannosaurus rex are controversial. Some contend that a modest bite mechanically limited T. rex to scavenging, while others argue that high bite forces facilitated a predatory mode of life. We use dynamic musculoskeletal models to simulate maximal biting in T. rex. Models predict that adult T. rex generated sustained bite forces of 35 000–57 000 N at a single posterior tooth, by far the highest bite forces estimated for any terrestrial animal. "

Ahem

"Models predict that adult T. rex generated sustained bite forces of 35 000–57 000 N at a single posterior tooth, by far the highest bite forces estimated for any terrestrial animal. "

So that means Stan, the T.rex used in the study, had a peak bite force of up to 161 kN (46 x 3.5 = 161), which is much more powerful than the peak bite forces of the massive mega tooth sharks or the largest pliosaurs. Like all peak bite forces though, the force diminishes to 1/3.5 of its original power a few seconds after the first bite.

The scary part is that Stan is not the largest rex (you should all probably know that by now). If we were to calculate the bite power of Sue, the largest Tyrannosaurus rex, we would get this.

(8.4/6.85)^.666666666666666666 = 1.146
1.146 x 46000 = 52716

Sue had a sustained bite force of about 52.7 kN, which would suggest a peak bite force of 184.5 kN, which blows all the other competitors of biting out of the water (except for maybe Purussaurus but we aren't sure on its size, which in turns makes us unsure on its bite force).

So there you have. T.rex had the most powerful bite of any animal yet known, and that makes it the "king of "muh bite force"".
Add a Comment:
 
:icondontknowwhattodraw94:
Dontknowwhattodraw94 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I was actually expecting Livyatan here...
Did not see this one coming.

How do actually know the peak biteforce is 3x sustained biteforce? Is that a standard rule?
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Edited Jan 17, 2017
Yeah, Livyatan doesn't have enough information on it.

The peak biteforces for all but crocs is a little speculative, but even if you are not using peak bite force, T.rex is a harder biter than large pliosaurs, crocodilians, or megatooth sharks.

Sue: 52.7 kN
Stan: 46 kN
C. megalodon: 31.1 kN
Pliosaurus kevani: 26 kN
Svalbard pliosaur: 34.3 kN
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Dafuq

It outbites all the giant crocodylomorphs, pliosaurs and even lamnid sharks?!

That said, I feel like there is one mammal that would easily beat T. rex.....
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
thats is..?

dont let your anti T.rex bias blind you.
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Livyatan
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
it currently being looked into so well have to wait.
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Not suprised about the fact it out-bites lamnid sharks. Mackeral sharks have weak bite forces for their size.
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
True, but crocodilians?
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Edited Jan 16, 2017
Purussaurus is a contender, but its sustained bite force is about 45 kN for a 10 meter specimen, a little weaker than Stan's, and a 7 kN less than Sue's. 

The reason I didn't include it is because we aren't sure about its size, and therefore, its bite force.

I measured Deinosuchus with a 86 kN bite force IIRC.
Reply
:iconpcawesomeness:
PCAwesomeness Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Dang.

Who knew that Tyrannosaurus was been more static than we would have thought?
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
would skull size matter?   Stan > CM 9380 ?
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017  Student Digital Artist
The part that really matters in the biteforce issue is the posterior most portion.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
wow.....that's.........unexpected........
It actually bit harder than animals several times bigger than it....

btw, do you really need Purussaurus whole size? You have it's skull so it's biteforce should be calculable regardless of what body you stick on that skull.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Jan 16, 2017  Student Digital Artist
You do need it, because the method that was used in the Purussaurus paper was not a finite elements computational analysis of the skull, but rather an allometry method based on square cube laws, because what powers the jaws are the muscles anyway, and modern day caimans are morphologically similar and work in a similar way to Purussaurus . That's why C.megalodon or extint crocodilomorphs are always estimated using scalings from modern day, extant animals.

The biteforce of the caimans was measured in vivo, and then scaled up to the calculated calculated mass of Purussaurus, which is , almost certainly, an overestimation, although by how much, I'm not sure. But a 12.5 meters long one looks absolutely disptroportionate and ridiculous, as proven by :iconblazze92:images.discordapp.net/.eJwVxFE…)

One of the  relevant paragraphs in Purussaurus study:
Purussaurus brasiliensis thrived in the northwestern portion of South America during the Late Miocene. (...) In the present work, we used regression equations based on modern crocodilians to present novel details about the morphometry, bite-force and paleobiology of this species.

The study itself:

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…

And yes other methods can be used, but based on this one, mass does have a major impact.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
the 12,5 m Purussaurus looks goofy as hell (I am now imagining the 14m estimates, oh boi )
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks for the information!
Reply
:iconlorenzo-franzese:
Lorenzo-Franzese Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The king remains un-dethroned.
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Only in terms of bite force (maybe "the largest theropod", but Spino's a serious contender)

And don't forget Livyatan is a major contender for that title...
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Jan 16, 2017
the current "consensus" in the paleo community is that Spinosaurus was under 7.6 tonnes.

There are many and i mean a lot T.rex specimens that likely surpassed this.

its a serious contender because many of the other large Theropods are turning out to be smaller than once thought.
and Spinosaurus is Still slightly above the 7.5 tonne mark thats why. 
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Didn't it come out as 7.8 tons? Not to mention there is only one adult Spinosaurus specimen
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2017
2 actually. this would make an "average'' Spinosaurus 13.25 meters long and 5.3 tonnes.
i think its best that we use the largest individuals for each species.

www.deviantart.com/art/Spinosa…
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Jan 17, 2017
no it should be under 7.6 tonnes according to the people who made it. (who i speak with often)

and yes? theres more than one adult specimen for T.rex but that wont make it 6-7 tonnes.
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
The only problem is that we have no idea of the bite force Livyatan, not until someone meassure's the bite force of a killer whale.
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Orca bite forces, IIRC, are rather high, and Basilosaurus had the highest bite forces among mammals.
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
There are no good calculations on the bite forces of orcas.

Basilosaurus does have the most powerful bite among mammals true that, but its nowhere near the biting strengths of T.rex, megatooth sharks, pliosaurs, and giant crocodilians. Another problem is that it has different proportions
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
The jaw morphology of Livyatan just overall looks like something with an absurd bite force.
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2017
Again, while I think Livyatan would have a powerful biteforce, until someone does some more research on it, we can't be sure.
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
In bite force and body mass that is.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
Your animal would break it's own head by biting. I really doubt that all animals used the exact same ratios for peak:sustained biteforces.

Body mass? There are several theropods competing for the title. The "winner" remains indeterminate.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Jan 16, 2017
can you please inform me on these 7 theropods?
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Zhuchengtyrannus unnamed species (David Hone's specimen), possibly Alamotyrannus?, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, possibly Carcharodontosaurus?, Deinocheirus?, some theropod ichnotaxa?, Spinosaurus, possibly Saurophaganax?
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Jan 16, 2017
i could say yes to Spino at a recently estimated 7.56 tonnes. how ever many T.rex specimens would surpass this by possibly half a tonne.


Giga dentry seems to come for an animal 2.2 % larger than the holotype not accounting for slight individual variation.

i would like to see your source for 'Zhuchengtyrannus unnamed species'
i don`t consider 
Alamotyrannus its own thing.. and the Elephant Butte specimen has a 94 cm dentry according to Randomdinos vs Sues 101 cm dentry.

theres over whelming evidence for 
Saurophaganax being 10-11 meters long and 3.5 - 4.0 tonnes. (Jona gold had a good write up on this i a recent journal of his)

Mapusaurus is a complete mess i wouldn't bring it in.

the current consensus here at DA has 
Carcharodontosaurus at below 12.5 m and 7 tonnes.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
"Giga dentry seems to come for an animal 2.2 % larger than the holotype not accounting for slight individual variation."

Depends. Scott Hartman has it at +~6.5%, while GAT has it at +8%.


"i would like to see your source for 'Zhuchengtyrannus unnamed species'"

Dave Hone's "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles", it's an isolated Zhuchengtyrannus vertebra at least as large as the largest one in Sue.


"the current consensus here at DA has Carcharodontosaurus at below 12.5 m and 7 tonnes"

That's one interpretation. The thing is very fragmentary, interpretations can differ massively.
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2017
"That's one interpretation. The thing is very fragmentary, interpretations can differ massively."

Yeah, but a Tyrannotitan proportioned Carchar is probably more accurate than a 14.5 meter Acro proportioned Carchar that towers over every other carnivorous theropod.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
i wont address Giga since i dont have to.

"Dave Hone's "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles", it's an isolated Zhuchengtyrannus vertebra at least as large as the largest one in Sue"

ok ?


''That's one interpretation. The thing is very fragmentary, interpretations can differ massively.''

so can estimates with UCMP 118742.

a better way of looking at things is that all the reconstructions of Carcharodontosaurus except 2 have it a that size. (doesn't make it true but it tell me something)
Reply
:icon105697:
105697 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2017
Scott has it at 0-6.5%
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:icon105697: More from 105697


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
January 16
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
506
Favourites
5 (who?)
Comments
36
×