|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 7:13:18 GMT -5
Considering bears, if a bear has a head and body length of 8 feet, what will his height be when standing on hind legs? I remember back in the old AVA when someone had come to the conclusion that these two measurements coincide fairly accurately. Your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 7:17:17 GMT -5
Well yeah, but head and body length is measured from nose to tail, and bipedal height is measured from top of the head to feet, this means now the legs are added. So in theory, bipedal height should be a little more. How long are the hind legs of a grizzly?
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 7:19:02 GMT -5
This drawing shows height greater than length; but how accurate is it? 3 meters = 9 feet 10 inches.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 7:22:30 GMT -5
3 meters in head and body length, and more than 3 meters in bipedal height. Makes perfect sense as the length of the hind legs are added. Bipedal height is the same as head and body length plus the length of the hind legs.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 19, 2020 7:27:52 GMT -5
I personally think that a 11 ft long male polar bear will also be around the same height or slightly taller when it is standing in its bipedal mode.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 7:37:43 GMT -5
Reply #2, Judging by the measurements, head and body length is 3 meters, and bipedal height is around 3.5 meters, (or a little less). This means bipedal height added around 0.5 meters more.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 7:41:32 GMT -5
www.dimensions.com/element/grizzly-bear The Grizzly Bear (Ursus Arctos Horribilis) is a subspecies of the brown bear with a large population. The Grizzly Bear came from Europe and Asia, but can only be found today in North America and Canada. The Grizzly Bear has brown fur throughout its body, but golden and grey fur is on the back of its body and gives it a squatting look. The diet of Grizzly Bears contains fish (primarily salmon), moose, bison, and black bear while also including seeds, fruit, and a variety of leaves. Due to ruthless widespread hunting, the numbers of wild Grizzly Bears have decreased dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s. However, it has increased recently because of certain laws on bear-hunting. Male Grizzly Bears have a shoulder height between 3’6”-4’6” (1.07-1.37 m) and a weight in the range of 400-800 lb (181-363 kg). The shoulder heights of females are between 3’-3’8” (.91-1.12 m) with weights from 300-400 lb (136-181 kg). The Grizzly Bear has an overall body length of roughly 5’6”-8’ (1.68-2.44 m), standing height of 8’-9’9” (2.5-3 m), and a typical lifespan of 20-25 years in the wild or up to 45 years when protected in captivity.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 19, 2020 7:43:29 GMT -5
Reply 6, The grizzly is slightly taller when it is standing compared to being on all fours.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 7:44:42 GMT -5
What evidence we really need are the measurements of one bear, such as Bart the Bear or Casey Anderson's Brutus. Once we have the accurate measurements all from the same bear - then case closed. *The same rules which apply to bears should also apply to the big cats.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 7:52:59 GMT -5
Makes sense. When bipedal, the grizzly is around 0.6 to 0.7 meters more than his head and body length. That would be how long its hind legs are.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 8:17:33 GMT -5
Here we have average length 7 ft and average height 7 ft.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 10:14:33 GMT -5
Reply #10 is just general data, they are not going into details really. Reply #6 is more reliable, more details. Its obvious that bipedal height is slightly more than head and body length unless you think the bear's hind legs dont measure anything. The difference is a little more than half meter.
The bear at reply #10, look how much the hind legs measure, around 2 feet (0.6 meters), now imagine putting the bear on all four legs and measuring it? Those 2 feet of the hind legs will not be included. Head and body length is measured between the nose and the tail, therefore the hind legs are not included.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 10:44:53 GMT -5
Reply #10 is just general data, they are not going into details really. Reply #6 is more reliable, more details. Its obvious that bipedal height is slightly more than head and body length unless you think the bear's hind legs dont measure anything. The difference is a little more than half meter.
The bear at reply #10, look how much the hind legs measure, around 2 feet (0.6 meters), now imagine putting the bear on all four legs and measuring it? Those 2 feet of the hind legs will not be included. Head and body length is measured between the nose and the tail, therefore the hind legs are not included. Actually, we have no precise comparisons posted here just yet. As I stated in reply #8, what evidence we really need are the precise measurements of just one bear. We might find this with Bart the Bear, Brutus, or perhaps some other bear. Only this can seal the deal.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 10:48:42 GMT -5
Ok well, lets try to find the measurements of one particular bear. But what you are basically saying is that the bear's hind legs (which measure more than half meter) wont make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 14:03:19 GMT -5
Ok well, lets try to find the measurements of one particular bear. But what you are basically saying is that the bear's hind legs (which measure more than half meter) wont make a difference. I'm saying there may be unseen variables. One who could answer this question is tigerluver over on WF.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 14:10:38 GMT -5
First Post: Contour Length ( measured over curves ) wrong. / Total Length ( includes length of tail ) wrong. Head-and-Body Length ( measured in straight line from nose to rump ( base of tail ) correct.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 14:22:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 14:24:32 GMT -5
Wow, i just saw you added that to your first post, what a coincidence, lol.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2020 14:26:17 GMT -5
Quote: A-TOTAL LENGTH-(MOST ACCEPTED METHOD). *This is true, although in a head-and-body length comparison, the length of the tail should not be included.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Aug 19, 2020 14:30:28 GMT -5
Quote: A-TOTAL LENGTH-(MOST ACCEPTED METHOD). *This is true, although in a head-and-body length comparison, the length of the tail should not be included. Of course not, but in the case of bears, that barely affects, the tail is very short. When tigers are being measured, they have both measurements.
Head-body.....no tail-195 cm Total length.....with tail-295 cm
The tail measures 100 cm (1 meter)
|
|