Were Sabertooth teeth covered by lips?

>>2437433
That is beyond retarded looking.

File: image.jpg (200KB, 640x482px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 640x482px

Not to that extent. There are plenty of present day examples of saber-toothed/tusked animals and they don't have floppy jowls

>>2437464
those current day examples use their saber-teeth tusks for burrowing through earth, self-defense or sexual display
Sabercats used their teeth as a weapon for killing so they would have no use for showing off their saber-teeth

>dinosaurs were huge retarded birds
>saber tooth tigers are just big guinea pigs
What's next????

>>2437449
Science doesn't care if reconstructions look retarded. These are animals and sometimes animals just look retarded

>>2437467
they are able to use them offensively though; i.e I've experience w/ a muntjac who gutted a pitbull

>>2437475
pretty sure that muntjac was defending itself

>>2437467
You don't think saber teeth could have also acted as a sexual selection trait? I'm sure they could have done both.

>>2437488
i dont think so, since female sabercats had them aswell

File: i-5d41fbbc0b091030528fba2331fe74c3-Thylacosmilus life.jpg (72KB, 320x274px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 320x274px

>>2437433
No. But Thylacosmilus had a bone covering for their canines.

File: ostrich___jurassic_park_version_by_raph04art-db112na.jpg (195KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 792x612px

>>2437470
I kno rite? When are scientists going to stop making extinct animals not cool fantasy monsters?!

File: C5riaWMWYAERgpX.jpg (44KB, 1199x684px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1199x684px

>>2437470
Plesiosaurs were fat like whales because shrinkwrap doesn't hold in body heat.

>>2437433
Why the fuck would they be covered by lips? Who even thinks of this shit?

>>2437474
>Science
Oh boy here we go. Show me the "science" that indicates sabertooths had cheek pouches like a fucking bulldog.

File: 5d6.jpg (28KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x600px

>>2437506
>If a reconstruction is fucking retarded, it simply MUST be true, regardless of whether or not evidence actually supports it, because that makes me cool and in the know, unlike you plebs
Pop "science" was a fucking mistake of ebin proportions.

>>2437544
I don't know, but if there is a retard reconstruction of an extinct animal, you can bet both testes that there will be an entire fanclub of pop "sci" retards online dickriding it into a nub.

>>2437433
DIABEETUS

>>2437464
Tusks aren't enameled as extensively as teeth are.

If sabertooth cats had tusks you'd be right.
they didn't so you're not.

>>2437544
because all mammals have their teeth covered by lips (tusks are an exception, they are shown off for sexual selection)

File: 1485849739460.jpg (70KB, 496x447px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 496x447px

>>2437571

someone draw an elephant with giant cheek pouches

File: Paleo_Hall_at_HMNS_plesiosaur.jpg (143KB, 1200x870px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1200x870px

>>2437534
That's fine so long as they don't mess with best dino

>>2438928
That's because our teeth fit in our mouth. There is no evolutionary drive for an animal to evolve giant flaps to cover its teeth. There's no reason natural selection would ever prefer that.
Also, how are they different from tusks? And why wouldn't they be used for sexual selection? If they were used for hunting, then bigger teeth = better hunter = better mate.

>>2439096
tusks don't have dentin on them and calcify fairly fast which is why they tend to be whiter than the rest of the skeleton. This is not the case with sabertooth canines

>>2437534
This is why sea turtles, sharks and tuna look like tardigrades.

Oh wait.

>>2437474
>>2437506
Jesus Christ. Where is the dino autist when you need him?

File: Is this nigga serious.jpg (20KB, 369x316px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 369x316px

>>2437433

>>2439163
when a post is wrong on so many levels I just shake my head and walk away.

File: feline smilodon teeth lips.jpg (245KB, 500x1016px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 500x1016px

This particular artist imagined a smilodon with larger covering lips, but not those incredibly huge ones. A compromise.

>>2439170
>A compromise.
Half way between right and wrong is not a compromise, it's also wrong.

>>2439172
Is there evidence that they didn't have such lips? Don't uncovered teeth have a particular pattern of wearing and breaking?

>>2439177
The evidence (analogy) indicates they had long lips that covered the entire tooth.

having the tooth uncovered is incorrect. Having the tooth half-covered is equally incorrect.

>>2439178
Well, if the evidence suggests completely covered, then I agree it should be completely covered.

>>2439188
He's just making shit up though.

>>2437433
doesn't seem wrong to me, if you look at lions and tigers they have pretty floppy faces

>>2439204
am not.

terrestrial vertebrates with fully enameled teeth (not tusks, which have reduced enamel) ALL have lips that cover the teeth. Because when enamel dries out it cracks and breaks.

And I'm not any of the scientists that have pointed this fact out.

>>2439217
I've heard this, too. The animals that tend to have exposed teeth are already in the water.

File: 31426.jpg (243KB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 940x529px

>>2437433
Feline lips don't work that way.
>>2439255
>Don't mind me,just resting on dry land on the driest months of the dry season.

File: Sus Hillson 2005.jpg (29KB, 374x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 374x400px

>>2437597
>Tusks aren't enameled as extensively as teeth are.

Then what are these?

File: IMG_8437.jpg (128KB, 792x488px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 792x488px

No reason to believe they weren't at all. This a good example >>2439170
Sabercats had canines, not tusks.

Pic related. Clouded leopard skull cast and the closest living relatives to saber tooth cats.

>>2439602
>Then what are these?
enameled less extensively than teeth.
exactly like I said.

>>2439602
>Enamel covers the forward-facing sides of the tooth, while the rear-facing surface is covered by cementum
http://articles.extension.org/pages/63589/feral-hog-tusk-characteristics

this is the same morphology found in rodent incisors which are also exposed to air most of the time. They aren't fully enameled so there's less need to keep them moist- they've evolved to wear and break in useful ways. They also grow continuously so if they didn't wear or break the animal can die.

>>2439599
>Don't mind me
Crocodiles do occasionally break teeth from drying them out. They can replace each tooth up to 50 times in their lifetime.

Cats can't do this.

>>2437475
>gutted a pitbull
jesus christ

>>2439096
>And why wouldn't they be used for sexual selection? If they were used for hunting, then bigger teeth = better hunter = better mate.
Because females have saber-teeth aswell. If they use teeth for sexual attraction, females would be attracted to other females aswell

>>2439096
>>2439652
You're both confusing sexual selection with handicap signals and dimorphism.

In reality their sabers WERE sexually selected, but this doesn't imply that they weren't used for hunting or that only one sex had them.

>>2439663
>In reality their sabers WERE sexually selected
How do you know? Are you a paleontologist?

>>2439674
How would a paleontologist even know that?

>>2439674
>>2439738
how would ANYONE know that?

>>2439076
That's a lizard.

>>2439674
>>2439738
>>2439769
You know it by ruling out the alternatives.

Do environmental pressures alone normally produce this result?
>no
then there's something else producing it
>what else is there?
sexual selection
>oh yeah! I totally didn't realize sexual selection could produce traits other than dimorphism and sexual signaling!
I know, Jonny. That's because you're a moron with a 3rd grade education at best!
>gee thanks uncle Billy! Sure is swell to have a scientist in the family!
Oh, Jonny!

File: 895_thylacosmilus_roman_uchytel.jpg (99KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 750x600px

>>2437494
fuckn' nature is dumb

>>2437494
>>2439842
B-but NO! This couldn't have existed because muh enamel! MUH ENAMEL!!!

File: thylacosmilus.jpg (108KB, 1024x745px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1024x745px

>>2437494
>>2439842
>>2439914
try to keep up

>>2439950
Lol yes I'm positive this is what it looked like.

>>2439172
You're right. This one is far more likely to be correct and OP's is clearly retarded as fuck.

>>2440047
>>2440054
>I don't like it
compelling rebuttal

File: 1477989017237.jpg (396KB, 1324x341px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1324x341px

>>2437464
So are all the contrarian "hip" amateur biologists going to keep ignoring the fact that Muntjacs have fully enameled fangs without a vagina face? This thread should have been over as soon as that fucking deer was posted. Second post end of thread post.

>>2440065
>I'm stupid, therefore right!
See above. You're done. This thread is done. Take your fucking 4chan syndrome back to mommy's suburban basement and die.

>>2440070
>this autistic

>>2437475
I feel there should be a story behind this

File: Muntjac-Deer.jpg (59KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x533px

>>2440070
>See above. You're done. This thread is done.
that's not a muntjac.
muntjacs have lips that cover their fangs. Pic related.

Go read up on water deer and try again.

>>2440111
I had a doe lick my hand at the zoo once, it was pretty weird.

>>2440113
They're pretty small, aren't they?

>>2439652
Not necessarily. Consider deer antlers. Male deer are usually the only ones to have antlers, but this isn't exclusive. Female caribou use their antlers to protect feeding territories, and so they also grow and keep antlers.

idk i wasnt there

>>2440123
They are small and like to lick your hand. I will let any animal lick my hand that wants to.

>>2439950
I kind of want this one to be real. It's too good.

is there any legit cave paintings or artwork of smilodons?

>>2440401
I dunno, we've seen cave paintings of cave lions, you'd think there would be a preserved skin around somewhere, they've found mammoths and shit. maybe somebody just needs to start digging for one