The feeding habits of saber-toothed cats have long perplexed scientists. How in the world did these cats kill prey with their almost comically-oversized teeth? Did Smilodon and its kin use their teeth like daggers to stab prey to death, or did they simply rip out a huge chunk of flesh from the side of a victim, leaving their prey to hemorrhage to death?
While the stabbing hypothesis has generally been abandoned it is still a mystery how sabercats used their immense canines, especially since there were three different types of saber-toothed cats which differed in their killing techniques. Perhaps the characteristics of the prey animals themselves could provide some clues as to how the felids might have fed. There may be more than one way to attack a mammoth or giant sloth, but some ways would certainly have been better than others.
Frustratingly, however, figuring out what prey sabercats favored has been a difficult task. For a long time this subject was simply a matter of conjecture. In 1846, for example, Richard Owen delivered a lecture to the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in which he took the heavily-armored hides of the glyptodonts to indicate that they were a favored prey of sabercats in South America. A summary of his report stated;
Prof. Owen thought that the present knowledge of the co-existence with those large herbivorous Armadilloes [i.e. glyptodonts] of a gigantic carnivorous species like Machairodus [a genus of large sabercat, but probably actually Smilodon in this case], gave some insight into their need of a complete and strong defence of all the exposed parts of the body and the tail, since they had not the powerful claws with which the Megatherioid quadrupeds [i.e. giant ground sloths] might have waged war with the Machairodus.
Whether such defensive armaments were created through the operation of natural law or were bequeathed by a designer who liked to see the mammals go at each other in gladiatorial combat is left unstated.
The American paleontologist E.D. Cope echoed Owen's conception of the dining choices of sabercats in his On the Extinct Cats of America. Cope speculated;
The known species [of Smilodon] belong to the Pliocene period, and were the cotemporaries of the gigantic sloths and Glyptodons, which at that time ranged over the entire American continent. Their powerful limbs terminated by immense claws, bespeak for them exceptional force in striking and tearing their prey, and the long compressed canine teeth are well adapted for penetrating the tough hides and muscles of the large Edentata [i.e. giant sloths and glyptodonts], which were doubtless their food.
It all seemed very simple. Smilodon was a massive, heavily-muscled cat with extremely elongated incisors that lived in the same habitat as sloths with huge claws and glyptodonts protected by shells made of osteoderms (some even had a little cap made of osteoderms to protect their heads). Clearly the depredations of Smilodon and its kin had driven this evolutionary arms race, and the American paleontologist Frederic A. Lucas thought that the cat used its teeth as something like a can-opener. In his 1902 book Animals Before Man in North America Lucas wrote;
If [Smilodon] preyed upon the ground sloths, as Professor Cope suggested, the use of their enormous canine teeth seems evident. The sloths are covered with coarse hair implanted in a thick hide, and some of the mylodons were even protected by numerous small bones embedded in the skin. While such a creature might not be invulnerable to the attacks of an ordinary beast of prey, it is evident that our largest cat, the jaguar, might beat and bite his huge carcass in vain. But the powerful teeth of smilodon, like two daggers, would reach through hair and hide to the deep-seated arteries of the neck, and before such a foe the big, sluggish mylodon would go down.
The elongated fangs of the sabercats were seen by Lucas and others as adaptations that allowed them to take down large, thick-skinned prey like giant ground sloths and elephants. It seemed clear that the largest of the sabercats were probably adapted to capture and kill prey much larger than that preferred by modern tigers and lions. (Though both these cats can take down very large prey, especially prides of lions.) As with modern large carnivores, however, it appears that at least some sabercats preferred the young of large prey species. This is evidenced by an accumulation of the bones of young mammoths collected by the far-ranging sabercat Homotherium in a Pleistocene-age cave in Texas. Taking down adult mammoths or even large ground sloths would be a very dangerous undertaking, indeed, so the young of megaherbivores might have been just big enough for the ancient felids without imposing as much as a risk.
Given their hypercarnivorous habits, though, large sabercats like Smilodon and Homotherium could not rely on juvenile prey all year. They could not switch their diets to whatever food source was most abundant throughout the year like modern bears do. They had to keep hunting, but the details of their predatory habits likely varied from place to place and species to species, so it is difficult to come up with a comprehensive picture. (The most detailed analysis to date can be found in The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives.)
Indeed, while I have focused on Smilodon here due to its familiarity many other kinds of saber-toothed cats lived during prehistory. Assuming that they all had the same type of saber-teeth and used them in the same ways would be like saying that all prehistoric proboscideans (elephants, generally speaking) had the same tusk morphology and used their tusks in the same way. We know that this just isn't so, but it can be difficult to get across when there is just one flagship genus that everyone knows. Add to this the fact that some sabercat genera were far-ranging and long-lived and you have to account for potential variation of habits within those genera; how did Smilodon in North America differ from Smilodon in South America, for instance?
Despite its familiarity, though, we still have a lot left to learn about Smilodon. What it hunted, how it hunted, and why there are no more sabercats alive today are questions that remain difficult to fully grasp. Fortunately, though, scientific discussions about Smilodon have moved beyond just idle theorizing, and perhaps someday we'll have a more complete understanding of how Smilodon and its kin used their fearsome dental apparatus.
Offered FWIW: A book I have called Great Cats: Majestic Creatures of the Wild, published in 1991, contains a two-page spread on sabertooth cats. It's based primarily on the collection of Smilodon fatalis fossils recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits and housed at the Page Museum in Los Angeles. It describes a large number of healed injuries to these sabercat skeletons. Many of the injuries are stress-caused damage to the anterior thoracic region and the forelegs, generally consistent with an ambush predator which tackled prey animals at the end of a short, powerful charge.
The same sidebar offers some arguments in favor of Smilodon being a social species.
A Smilodon fends off vultures
No, Teratornis; Teratornithidae is AFAIK regarded as Neornithes incertae sedis.
I have always been fascinated by the sabertoothed cats, and of course how they hunted and fed is an enthralling question.
I was impressed by the analysis that Brian refers to in The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives. It seems highly unlikely the big upper canines were used against bony armor, as those teeth were likely to break if they struck bone -- especially being flattened rather than round in cross-section.
In TBCaTFR, the authors argue that the bigger sabercats probably preyed heavily on mid-sized to large ungulates (as well as juvenile probiscideans as the fossil evidence indicates for Homotherium specifically) using this specialized killing technique: Employing their immensely powerful forequarters, the big sabercats would wrestle such prey down and pin it, so they could bite it precisly in a softer area where they could do the most damage with the least chance of encountering bone, such as the underside of the throat or possibly the belly. In TBCaTFR, there is a diagram showing that if a large sabercat bit the underside of the throat it could simultaneously close off the windpipe and pierce the major blood vessels.
The idea of, say, Smilodon ambushing fast-running hooved mammals is a different picture from what I grew up with, when I always read that the big sabercats "probably hunted thick-skinned, slow-moving prey" -- although they could have done the latter too, as long as it was small enough to push over and hold down for its specialized killing bite.
Teratornithidae is AFAIK regarded as Neornithes incertae sedis.
Neornithes incertae sedis, really? I thought they would at least be neognaths.
It was William Akersten who first proposed that sabertoothed cats killed by piercing the skin of the prey animal, depressing their heads, and then pulling out a chunk of meat from their prey, a technique that has been dubbed the "canine shear bite", with the throat being considered the most likely point of attack. This is certainly more plausible than the old model, wherein smilodon and it's relatives used their canines like the knife of a mad slasher in a grade b horror movie (which would only serve to damage or break the teeth) or the even worse idea, that they waited around for animals to conveniently drop dead so they could scavenge them. Since the teeth of the various sabertoothed cats varied considerably, it's safe to conclude the biting manner varied too, but as you said, determining exactly how it was done is problematic.
Not to inject base humor into this scientific discussion, but...
"Whether such defensive armaments were created through the operation of natural law or were bequeathed by a designer who liked to see the mammals go at each other in gladiatorial combat is left unstated."
Seriously LOL'ing. :-)
thank you very good.
I have a documentary showing an experiment that was carried out to prove that the throat bite was the choice of the sabertooth and not the rediculous belly bite that some idiots like to waffle on about. A mechanical smilodon head was replicated from a real skull and the exact bite force that smilodon's jaws could generate were used on a cow carcus. The jaws could not get a purchase on the cow's belly, even at maximum gape, however when it was applied to the throat it pierced with ease and simultaneously severed the major arteries and windpipe.The curvature of the teeth also means that as the mouth closes, the teeth bite their way out of the tissue therefore making an easy release from the prey and minimising damage or breakage to the sabres. easy!