|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 4, 2022 15:28:01 GMT -5
Which bear is physically the strongest of bears at normal max size? Would it be the polar bear or the Kodiak bear? Also, who is the strongest at equal HB length? *Can we get a voting poll on this topic?  |
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 5, 2022 1:55:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 5, 2022 1:57:30 GMT -5
Since Polar Bears weigh around 450 kg and Kodiak Bears around 350-360 kg on average. I'd say that the former should be naturally stronger given they have 100 kg weight advantage. However, at same size, I'd wager on the Kodiak mostly due to the Shoulder Hump. I agree yz. Some of the polar bear's weight difference is related to his having a greater fat content; and this year-round. This is why the polar bear appears so big and round in the rear area. Also, the brown bear, or so I have read from numerous sources, has greater upper-body strength which includes, as you mentioned, that shoulder hump which reinforces his upper-body strength. Also included is his shorter thicker neck and broader skull. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 5, 2022 2:09:45 GMT -5
Body Type.Polar bears have a heavy stout body with strong muscular legs and well-developed neck muscles. Compared to other bears, the head of a polar bear is proportionally smaller. The necks of polar bears are longer than their nearest kin, the brown bear. This adaptation makes it easier for them to keep their heads above water when swimming. They have short, fur covered ears and a very short tail. Polar bears have large paws compared to body size, reaching 30 cm (12 in.) in diameter. The large paws of a polar bear act like snowshoes, spreading out the bear's weight as it moves over ice and snow. The forepaws are round, and the hind paws are elongated. The partial webbing between their toes, polar bears are able to use their front feet much like paddles to propel them rapidly through the water. The hind feet are slightly smaller. On both the front and hind feet, the bottoms are covered with dense fur, which affords better traction when moving on ice. Each toe has a thick, curved, nonretractable claw. The claws are used for grasping prey and for traction when running or climbing on ice. The sole of a polar bear's foot has thick, black pads covered with small, soft papillae (dermal bumps). The papillae create friction between the foot and ice to prevent slippage. Long hairs growing between pads and toes also help prevent slippage. Polar bears walk in a plantigrade manner (i.e., in a manner similar to humans with both heel and toe make contact with the ground when walking). On land, they are not as quick as brown bears and appear to have traded off speed for their extremely massive forelegs which they use to break through seal dens or flip a large seal out of the water. They are able to attain speeds of 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) for short distances. myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/~brilla/PBear.htm Brown bears do not have small paws, but comparatively ( equal HB length ), they have smaller paws than either the American black bear or the polar bear. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 5, 2022 2:17:26 GMT -5
This is what I know about bone density. People who live in the mountains have stronger bones than those who live on the flatlands. Lust like muscle tissue, bones develop strength according to usage. shaggygod.proboards.com/ (Specimen Review) NMNH 123386 (Ursus arctos) NMNH 275124 (Ursus maritimus ) Details on the brown bear is limited. NMNH data tells us it was an adult male bear weighing 330 lbs, while the polar bear was female. Compare the brown bear specimen with the following NMNH 301690 Yellowstone National Park (YNP) grizzly bear sow which weighed 500 lbs. It appears we are looking at a young adult boar. For follow up morphological data on interior and arctic North American brown bears, please visit the URSUS ARCTOS HORRIBILIS & BROWN BEAR section under the North America menu in the EXTANT BEAR PROFILES (IN DEPTH) section. RE: polar bear and brown bear, remember, the polar bear (whose diet is 90% meat) grow larger. Only mature specimens from the largest of brown bear populations where meat input is historically high are comparable to them as it relates to size. Ignoring the equation/formula used to estimate bone density, instead, take a deeper look at the other terrestrial and aquatic specimen values for example the Indian rhino, African lion, and walrus. If you are really interested in this material, go ahead and look up additional specimen info used in this study and share your results. So what do we need to know about the article? Well, W.P. Hall (the article author) thesis contends/states, "Increased bone density is highly correlated with aquatic habits in mammals." According, to Hall, aquatic wildlife that live in a submerged existence produce the highest bone density values when compared to their terrestrial counterparts. An interesting argument, although the specimen material examination (at a quick glance) leaves a lot more to be desired. To tie it in with the brown bear and the polar bear; the brown bear is often foraging for food (a lot of digging, moving stones/boulders, or den construction) while the more maritime polar bear (besides swimming) hunts seal primarily by breaking/puncturing thick ice. In short, there is a lot of dynamic forelimb activity coupled with large active hunting territory (see both hind-limbs and forelimb activities). IMO, corresponding bone density values plus quantitative sampling visa vi mature/prime male polar bears or boar brown bears (regardless of population) would be very interesting to look at. Grrraaahhh... Post by grrraaahhh on Oct 18, 2011 at 11:17am In case other members are not aware, the OP was citing the following article: Hall, P. William. The Correlation between High Limb-Bone Density and Aquatic Habits in Recent Mammals (1983). J. Paleont. 2:197-207. UrsusMaritimus... The information talks about the bone density that semi aquatic animals genrally have higher bone density compared to fully terrestrial animals. In conclusion, the polar bear being a semi-aquatic animal has denser bones than the brown bear. I am not sure wheather higer bone density equals more muscle mass. Some might say so others will disagree. Note: This is an assumption as the post above explains. It is aquatic lifestyle vs heavy work lifestyle. Unresolved. ( See "Bone Density/Robusticity among extant Ursids" at "Bears in General" ) |
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Jun 5, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -5
I created a poll with four options available; I voted for the third option as at maximum weights a polar bear would have a 30-35% weight advantage over a Kodiak bear (in this case we can rule it out being extra fat as the brown bear would also be in autumn condition). However, at equal HB-length the brown bear would normally be the heavier of the two (unless we assume a Foxe Basin polar bear; in that case it's about weight parity) and I'd regard it p4p a bit superior to a polar bear due to the larger head/neck as well as the shoulder muscularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 5, 2022 5:25:22 GMT -5
Reply 4. I agree with you regarding the brown bear paws. They are definitely not small and are extremely powerful. A larger male polar bear will have stronger paws (although the brown bear is stronger pound to pound).
|
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 5, 2022 5:28:04 GMT -5
 While a kodiak bear has a larger head and a thicker neck, the polar bear's jaws are more suited to deal with squirming prey. |
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 6, 2022 4:38:58 GMT -5
 The grizzly has a more developed hump but the polar bear seems to have more pronounced shoulder blades. |
|
|
|
Post by yz on Jun 6, 2022 5:00:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 6, 2022 5:29:42 GMT -5
Grizzly Years by Doug Peacock. I edged over the rise and froze: a huge dark grizzly shook the remains of a buffalo carcass in the air, much as a dog might play with a stick. From a hundred feet away I watched, motionless in the fading light.
The bear slammed the carcass to the ground and circled, stamping his forepaws on the bones and hide. I waited until his back was turned, then retreated a hundred yards and climbed a steep timbered hillside. I could see the flash of his claws as he turned over the dead buffalo. These were much longer than a black bear's, maybe four inches long. The grizzly looked almost black in the dim light. His shoulders, nearly as high as mine, were separated by a mound of muscle, which rippled as the bear pawed and slid the heavy carcass along the ground. His head was massive, scooped out below the eyes, and he must have weighed well over six hundred pounds. Doug Peacock is ( IMO ) the leading expert on Ursus arctos horribilis. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 6, 2022 5:52:40 GMT -5
Shoulder Hump**** This section will be given to the brown bear amongst ursines soley. We'll start out with a quote from the Great Bear Almanac, by Gary Brown on page 77- Brown bears have a hump between their shoulders that is covered with long hairs and is normally a reliable means of species identification. The long hair often accentuates the hump when "the hackles" are raised. This distinguishing feature is a distinctive mass of muscle that provides the brown bears with their digging ability and the powerful striking force of the forepaws. Once again, another part of brown bear anatomy (although other bears have similar features which shows why they can accomplish similar feats) which allows for tremendous striking force of the paws. However, this extra muscle also allows extra strength, as have other features such as the shortened back, greater amount of muscle in the limbs of bears, and leverage advantage in paw striking. Other ursines such as the black bear and polar bear, have this feature abridged, and felines lack it entirely. How large can the shoulder hump get however? Let's find out how high first, this source mentions how the bear's height is measured and than gives it (http://internationalhunte.../InteriorBearAnatomy.html)- The brown bear is 3-5 feet, from the bottom of the paw to the highest point at the shoulder. We can subtract this height from the limb length of Ursus arctos in the chart shown in section 1.0 to find the height of the shoulder hump. Ursus arctos's forelimb length is 2.857, subtracting this from three and five feet gives us a range of .143-2.143 feet. I would assume that only the largest bears would of roughly half a ton in weight would have a shoulder hump of two feet, whereas only the smallest would be within the range of .143 of a foot. However, since maximums and minimals don't particularly show averages, we will search for the average height of the grizzly, this source (http://www.bearinfosite.com/brown_grizzly_bear.htm ) gives an average- The adult bear is generally 3 1/2 feet tall when on all fours. The Shoulder Hump - part #1. Credits to Frank321 of the old AVA. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 6, 2022 5:54:22 GMT -5
Continued.... Now, to minus the limb length, 3.5-2.857=0.643. This should mean that the brown bear's shoulder hump is about 6 inches tall, at average (or at least, when the hump is erect, which it will be in some phases of running or digging.) Now, to find out how wide. While I don't have any evidence of this, pictures seem to clearly show a brown bear's shoulder hump is noticeably wider than it is high. So when we calculate how wide the shoulder hump of a brown bear is, we will use the term "at least wider than", since the shoulder hump of a brown bear is wider than it is tall. Now than, we know the shoulder hump of an average brown bear is at least wider than six inches, but what is the actual circumference of the hump? Having a hump at least wider than six inches, we can use pi to find out (note that we will use pi to the hundred-millionth unit.) 6*pi=18.84955592153876. However, since the shoulder hump is only half a circle, due to meeting with the back before completion, we must divide this by two- 18.84955592153876/2=9.42477796. So we now know that the shoulder hump of an average brown bear should at least have a circumference greater than 9.42477796 inches. Now, another question must be asked, what is the area of a an average brown bear's shoulder hump? We can find this by multiplying pi by the radius squared. So, pi*3^2= 28.27433385. However, since once more the shoulder hump of a brown bear is only half a circle we must once more, divide by two, so 28.27433385/2=14.137166925. Now the important phase, I would like to find out the weight of a brown bear's shoulder hump. The area of an average brown bear's shoulder hump is greater than 14.137166925 inches, or 1.17809724375 feet. How much area will this many feet of a brown bear weight. We will be using the grizzly bear in this scenario, since brown bear size is extremely fluctuating. This source (http://www.defenders.org/...wildlife/grizzly_bear.php ) says the average grizzly is 6-7 in length, and gives a median of 575 pounds. Now, to give an approximation of the weight of a grizzly bear's shoulder hump, we will divide the average weight of the bear by its average length. We aren't done yet however, we must also take into account a bear's fore- and hind limbs, as these make up some of the bear's weight as well, rather than just the torso. To account for the bear's hind and forelimbs, we will multiply the forelimb length and hind limb lengths given by the chart in the "Neuromuscular evolution" thread by two, and add them together, than add them to the bear's torso length. 2.857*2= 5.714, 2.802*2= 5.604, 5.714+5.604= 11.318. So, now we will add this length to the range of the bear's torso length, 11.318+6= 17.318, 11.318+7= 18.318. Now, we will divide the bear's weight by this length to find out how much weight a bear gains when it gains a foot in length, 575/17.318= 33.20244839667398082919505716595, 575/18= 31.944444444444443. So, every other foot added onto a bear should give it a gain of 33.20244839667398082919505716595-31.944444444444443 pounds. Now, to find our estimation for the shoulder hump weight we can stimply add on 17.809724375% of the weight our ranges gave us for per square foot of a grizzly bear. So, 33.20244839667398082919505716595+17.067652520105092%= 38.8693269, and 31.944444444444443 +17.067652520105092%= 37.3966112. However, it should be noted since seven feet was the upper weight range in length for a bear, we're likely talking about a bear closer to 625 pounds with the shoulder hump weight estimate, and since the shoulder hump of a bear lacks bones, in order to optimize muscle attachment, the overall weight will also likely (although not necessarily so, because bears for the most part, have all muscle in their shoulder hump, whereas the hips of a bear will show less weight per square foot due to the fact that's where the fat of a ursine is, and fat weighs less than muscle) be on the lower end of the estimation. Now, we can make a chart listing the statistics of a brown bear's shoulder hump. The Shoulder Hump - part #2. Credits to Frank321 of the old AVA. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 6, 2022 5:55:59 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. Shoulder Hump - part #3. Credits to Frank321 of the old AVA. |
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jun 12, 2022 7:55:20 GMT -5
|
|
horribilis
Parictis
“You have no idea how powerful the truth can be.” - Oliver Queen
Posts: 47
|
Post by horribilis on Jun 12, 2022 8:23:42 GMT -5
Putting my money on the kodiak bear in a p4p matchup and the polar bear in a matchup where both the contestants are average sized.
|
|
