Theropod bite force and skull stress differences (free pdf)
70 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Creisler
Aug 4, 2025, 11:41:53 AM8/4/25
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Ben Creisler
Andre J. Rowe & Emily J. Rayfield (2025)
Carnivorous dinosaur lineages adopt different skull performances at gigantic size
Current Biology 35(15): p3664-3673.e3
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2025.06.051
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(25)00811-5
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982225008115
Free pdf:
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2825%2900811-5
Highlights
Large theropods evolved distinct biomechanical strategies for feeding
Tyrannosaurids prioritized bite force, leading to higher skull stress
Megalosauroids and allosauroids maintained low-stress skull designs
Skull stress patterns reflect ecological divergence in carnivorous dinosaurs
Summary
Theropoda is one of the most extensively studied dinosaur clades, including iconic carnivores such as Tyrannosaurus rex and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. The clade includes the largest terrestrial bipeds ever described, including three lineages that independently achieved giant size: Megalosauroidea, Allosauroidea, and Tyrannosauroidea. Here, we investigate how increasing size influenced feeding performance by quantifying feeding-induced mechanical performance across numerous large theropods using 3D finite element analysis. Unexpectedly, we discovered a divergence in functional strategy among the three lineages that led to gigantic top predators: in non-tyrannosauroid theropods, skull stress generally did not increase with size, in contrast to tyrannosauroids, which experienced greater stress due to increased muscle volume and bite forces. When skulls were scaled to equivalent size, smaller theropods, particularly basal taxa, experienced higher stresses. Despite similar scaling constraints, theropods adopted two distinct functional and likely ecological strategies: increased size with reduced stress or increased skull size, muscle volume, and bite force at the cost of higher stress. Giant tyrannosaurids uniquely maximized bite force despite elevated cranial stress, a strategy perhaps driven by the demands of subduing increasingly large and mobile prey in the Late Cretaceous. Alternatively—or additionally—this shift may reflect ecological displacement by coexisting predators such as smaller theropods and giant crocodyliforms. Whatever the cause, tyrannosaurids pursued a high-risk, high-reward feeding strategy unlike any seen in their Early Cretaceous counterparts, underscoring a profound shift in mega-carnivore evolution near the end of the Mesozoic.
Gigantic, meat-eating dinosaurs didn't all have strong bites, analysis shows
A new paper:
Free pdf:
Andre J. Rowe & Emily J. Rayfield (2025)
Carnivorous dinosaur lineages adopt different skull performances at gigantic size
Current Biology 35(15): p3664-3673.e3
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2025.06.051
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(25)00811-5
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982225008115
Free pdf:
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2825%2900811-5
Highlights
Large theropods evolved distinct biomechanical strategies for feeding
Tyrannosaurids prioritized bite force, leading to higher skull stress
Megalosauroids and allosauroids maintained low-stress skull designs
Skull stress patterns reflect ecological divergence in carnivorous dinosaurs
Summary
Theropoda is one of the most extensively studied dinosaur clades, including iconic carnivores such as Tyrannosaurus rex and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. The clade includes the largest terrestrial bipeds ever described, including three lineages that independently achieved giant size: Megalosauroidea, Allosauroidea, and Tyrannosauroidea. Here, we investigate how increasing size influenced feeding performance by quantifying feeding-induced mechanical performance across numerous large theropods using 3D finite element analysis. Unexpectedly, we discovered a divergence in functional strategy among the three lineages that led to gigantic top predators: in non-tyrannosauroid theropods, skull stress generally did not increase with size, in contrast to tyrannosauroids, which experienced greater stress due to increased muscle volume and bite forces. When skulls were scaled to equivalent size, smaller theropods, particularly basal taxa, experienced higher stresses. Despite similar scaling constraints, theropods adopted two distinct functional and likely ecological strategies: increased size with reduced stress or increased skull size, muscle volume, and bite force at the cost of higher stress. Giant tyrannosaurids uniquely maximized bite force despite elevated cranial stress, a strategy perhaps driven by the demands of subduing increasingly large and mobile prey in the Late Cretaceous. Alternatively—or additionally—this shift may reflect ecological displacement by coexisting predators such as smaller theropods and giant crocodyliforms. Whatever the cause, tyrannosaurids pursued a high-risk, high-reward feeding strategy unlike any seen in their Early Cretaceous counterparts, underscoring a profound shift in mega-carnivore evolution near the end of the Mesozoic.
****
News:
News:
Gigantic, meat-eating dinosaurs didn't all have strong bites, analysis shows
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages