The next model incorporates a different approach from the typical jaw mechanics model by calculating the expected strength of the jaw. The relative strength of a beam can be thought of as the ratio of its sectional modulus and the bending moment (load × beam length). selleck chemicals If we assume a rectangular beam, the sectional modulus is htDent2× widDent/6 where htDent and widDent are the height and width of the beam (mm). Of course, dentaries are not perfect rectangles in cross-section, and

species do vary in shape (Dumont & Nicolay, 2006). However, in keeping with our goal of simplicity, we still made this assumption rather than measure the cross-sectional outlines. An example where a problem might arise is the comparison of beam strength in long bones of birds versus mammals. Here the large internal vacuities in avian bone might affect strength in comparison with mammals. Our assumption is that dentaries of bats are roughly similar in cross-sectional shape. If our assumption were incorrect then our model would be a relatively poor predictor of bite force. This turned out not to be the case. The bending moment is the length of the beam times the load applied. Because we want to compare relative resistance

to bending, a load of one can be used in all cases (Van Valkenburgh & Ruff, 1987; Van Valkenburgh & Koepfli, 1993). These calculations do not include an attempt to calculate an absolute stress produced by a load or the maximum load possible in a jaw as buy Selumetinib was done for teeth in Freeman and Lemen (2007a). Here we are calculating a relative index of strength using: Another approach using museum skeletal material to predict bite Branched chain aminotransferase force was taken by Thomason (1991) who estimated bite force in carnivores from measurements on photographs of skulls. His method uses the area of the opening in the skull formed by the zygomatic arch and the braincase in an effort to quantify the cross-sectional area of the jaw-closing muscles. This area coupled with input and output arms of the dentary

should be an index of bite force. Although there may be differences, areas and landmarks needed to calculate this index are measurable in microchiropterans with the result that we include the Thomason model for comparison with our models. Related to the Thomason model is our simplified zygoWidth model. The idea behind this model is that large jaw muscles can affect the width of the skull and are correlated with bite force. Unlike the Thomason model, our zygoWidth model makes no allowance for lever input and output arms. Using Freeman’s (1979, 1981a,b, 1984) research we could classify five insectivorous species in this study as having robust skulls (Lasiurus borealis, Lasiurus cinereus, Molossus molossus, Molossus ater and Noctilio leporinus). Six species are classified as having gracile skulls (Corinorhinus townsendi, Molossus megalophylla, Noctilio macrotis, Noctilio femorasaccus, Eumops perotis and Tadarida brasiliensis).