Talk:Smilodon

The bending force required to break the upper canine of Smilodon fatalis has been estimated from experiments with coyotes, red foxes, bobcats and racoons, where a force was applied from the rear edge towards the direction of the nose (fowards) and 70 % of total length of the upper canine from its base.

This would represent the direction of penetration of the upper canine into the flesh and the direction of mechanical stress on the upper canine.

In Smilodon "floridanus" the resulting bending force was 7,000 Newtons, in comparison, in tigers and lions the estimated force was 7,440 and 8,243 Newtons, respectively.

The anteroposterior bending force of the upper canine of S. fatalis is comparable to that of more conical-toothed carnivores of similar size.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00194.x

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=natrespapers

LeandroPucha (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

As above, feel free to add if you can summarise it briefly. Not sure why they use the name floridanus, though... FunkMonk (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Smilodon became extinct by 10,000 years ago" "The latest S. populator specimen from the Jirau Paleontological Site has been dated to 8,189–9,079 years cal. Before Present (BP)" those can't both be accurate can they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.188.140 (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Although apparently all modern felids have it, the baculum or penis bone has not yet been found in Smilodon and other Machairodontines.

In the tar pits of Rancho la Brea, hyoid bones, clavicles and even ear ossicles (Incus) have been found.

Despite the discovery of ~166,000 remains from ~3,000 individuals over the last ~150 years, no bone corresponding to the Smilodon baculum has yet been found.

Possible evidence of a baculum has been ruled out for Smilodon, as this small bone does not have the characteristics of felid bacula.

This has raised the question of whether this absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.25692

LeandroPucha (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, might warrant a sentence under description. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that there is too much useless picture in the article, can we talk about that ? Amirani1746 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but that sounds rather subjective. As long as an image is relevant to the adjacent text and doesn't clutter up the layout, I don't see the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The claim that Smilodon, specifically Smilodon populator, went extinct as recently as 8,2000 years ago is based on a single paper with extremely anomalous all-around dates for all bones analyzed (Faria et al 2025). Scientists I've personally contacted are skeptical of the study. I would go with more conservative extinction dates unless the more recent ones can be properly corroborated. PowerfulEdit (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but is there any upcoming study that will establish the 8,200 year old estimate? Colossal Cheetah (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do not think so, at least not from scientists unaffiliated with that study. For now it's better to go with older and more conservative estimates of approx. 12,000 years ago for this felid. PowerfulEdit (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am also strongly skeptical of outlier late radiocarbon dates, but we would need a reliable saying that it is generally thought that Smilodon went extinct around 12,000 years ago though, covering both S. fatalis and S. populator Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply