|
Post by brobear on Jan 4, 2019 18:55:15 GMT -5
Correct scientific analysis will eventually provide answers. Opinions based on amateur ideas and feeling values do not. Well then, provide some data. But, in all honesty, which is stronger at weight-parity is meaningless. I'm interested in size-parity. A fair meaningful contest.
|
|
|
Post by Kamchatka on Jan 4, 2019 19:08:29 GMT -5
Read recent study links posted.
I will discuss findings.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Jan 4, 2019 19:27:54 GMT -5
Yes please provide some of this data or at least links. Making random statements doesn't prove anything either
|
|
|
Post by Kamchatka on Jan 4, 2019 19:32:04 GMT -5
My statements were specific.
Read the recent studies linked.
Only then I can discuss them here.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 5, 2019 1:15:22 GMT -5
My statements were specific. Read the recent studies linked. Only then I can discuss them here. Our studies show that bears are stronger than cats.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Jan 5, 2019 1:19:28 GMT -5
My statements were specific. Read the recent studies linked. Only then I can discuss them here. Your statements are specific, except...... you forgot to provide the links.
|
|
|
Post by Sven. on Jan 5, 2019 18:36:23 GMT -5
Tom, I think 'Kamchatka' means the links to recent studies which were posted by 'Bear studies?' on the previous page.
I found them worth a read.
Sven.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 19, 2019 6:05:18 GMT -5
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085574 Conclusions The most important bone elements of the forelimb represent a remarkable case of evolution in which similar morphologies were acquired to afford the same biomechanical necessities generated in extremely different ecological scenarios. The results of PCA can be interpreted as evidencing that most of the morphological variation in all these bones is associated with two morphological solutions (slender vs. robust) for affording several ecological problems. For example, robust forelimb bones evolved towards manipulating large prey (as in the case of saber-tooths), towards digging (in the case of the European badger), or for maneuvering during swimming (in the case of the Canadian river otter). Therefore, different ecological requirements can be solved with a single morphology, in this case having robust bones, as they have similar biomechanical demands. In contrast, slender bones evolved towards fast-running (in the case of the cheetah) or to travel longer distances by increasing stamina (in the case of foxes or wolves). Again, the same morphological solution (slender limbs) addresses different ecological problems with similar biomechanical demands. So, we hypothesize that the morphology of the forelimb bones is constrained towards being slender and robust. With only these two morphological extremes, different unrelated taxa have been adapted to afford the same biomechanical requirements in different ecological scenarios. Therefore, the “general morphology” of the forelimb bones represents an extreme “one-to-many mapping” case with a remarkable absence of specific morphological convergences towards the same ecological environments. We propose that this absence of a high phenotypic variability in the forelimb bones is probably associated to balance a trade-off between maintaining resistance to stresses and increasing the energetic efficiency of locomotion. As a consequence, those species in which resistance to different stresses was enhanced at the expense of reducing locomotion efficiency evolved towards having more robust forelimb bones. In contrast, those species that have a more efficient locomotion evolved towards a more slender condition. However, there are many environmental regimes (or ecologies) in which one or another morphological solution could be favoured by natural selection. This “one-to-many mapping” case between shape and ecology led to an absence of correlation between the shape of the forelimb bones and both MRS and DMD. In spite of these, some morphological changes indicative of specific adaptations to improve the function of the forelimb through the modification of muscle mechanical advantages and joint mobility are also recognized in PCA. However, these functional adaptations are very diverse and they hardly reflect ecology, as one trait could be useful for different activities. Therefore, we will use in future projects other analyses such us canonical variates analysis or linear discriminant functions in the search for specific bone shape features that finely reflect functional adaptations in carnivorans –instead of PCA, which allows describing the major axes of shape variation. Accordingly, although in this paper we quantify the general morphology of the forelimb bones and its meaning, future research will be conducted to find those bone features that better reflect specific functional adaptations.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Mar 7, 2019 20:36:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BruteStrength on Mar 8, 2019 6:30:50 GMT -5
This just goes to show the sheer power of a grizzly.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 9, 2019 2:06:17 GMT -5
Correct scientific analysis will eventually provide answers. Opinions based on amateur ideas and feeling values do not. When a big cat and a bear are compared at weight-parity, the one which is anywhere from one to two feet shorter yet near equal in girth is obviously the stronger-built animal. No need for a second opinion from a rocket scientist.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 9, 2019 2:10:19 GMT -5
Continued.... Shoulder hump Height- six inches. Width- greater than six inches. Circumference- greater than 9.42477796 inches. Area- greater than 14.137166925 inches. Estimated weight (roughly)- 38.8693269-37.3966112 pounds. Percentage of body weight estimation- 6.759882939130435-6.503758469565218% To sum up the shoulder hump section, we can conclude the extra hump of muscle a brown bear will have will have a noticeable effect on the conclusion, as seemingly 36 pounds of muscle will be gained in this area; this would mean a feline's muscles would need to be much more powerful than those of a bear to ditigate the effect of an extra 30+ pounds of muscle; something which is highly unlikely. This post is about the shoulder hump of an average grizzly - comes after the last two posts on page #2 of this topic.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 10, 2019 5:21:52 GMT -5
www.allgrizzly.org/bio ... Good dependable Data found here. *Note: I posted this in a new topic, thinking that it already existed. Now I remember why I never started the topic, "Grizzly Morphology". Because every physical attribute of the grizzly adds to his great strength, leverage, and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 9:32:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on May 11, 2019 10:15:49 GMT -5
Did you take that pic? Can you put it larger?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 10:19:29 GMT -5
Did you take that pic? Can you put it larger? I forgot to say: click the pictures to enlarge and yes I took the pictures.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on May 11, 2019 11:40:53 GMT -5
Did you take that pic? Can you put it larger? I forgot to say: click the pictures to enlarge and yes I took the pictures. Yeah i clicked on it, but its blurry, cant read it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 20:06:40 GMT -5
I forgot to say: click the pictures to enlarge and yes I took the pictures. Yeah i clicked on it, but its blurry, cant read it.Its clear on my computer. Maybe my phone is a bit old. I will use my samsung galaxy and try to repost/upload it tonight. Hopefully it will be clearer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 9:47:10 GMT -5
I used screenshot. Hope its clearer this time. Otherwise I might have to ask a friend of mine for help. Bear with shorter backbone than a lion means, bear is stronger than lion. Brown bear has shorter spine for more strength.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 26, 2019 12:26:22 GMT -5
www.allgrizzly.org/front-limbs - Courtesy from Warsaw. Of all the morphologic features that typify bears, the front limbs and associated skeletal infrastructure are the most distinctive. They are also diagnostic of the bear life strategy (see Life strategy). No other terrestrial vertebrate of its size--certainly no other large carnivore--has front limbs that are as flexible, powerfully built, and mounted with such dexterous paws. Nor do any comparable-sized carnivores have such out-sized claws...claws which are clearly "designed" to be powered by the muscular arms and shoulders to either climb trees, extract food from a durable matrix (i.e., dig), or grapple with and subdue large prey such as seals, moose, and elk. What follows is a summary of the evidence produced over the years elaborating on and substantiating the preceding thumbnail sketch. You will have to forgive me for the abundance that follows, but it is reflective of the extent to which I see this aspect of bear morphology as key to understanding the overall bear life strategy--as well as niche.
|
|